Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the conquest of Abyssinia and the return of the Emperor Haile Selassie to his dominions, he will consider the advisability of entering into an alliance with him for the purposes of defence against the common enemy in the war?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): There is nothing that I can usefully add to the statement which I made on 4th February outlining the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Abyssinia.

Mr. Mander: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that in view of recent developments in Abyssinia some announcement of a change in our relations will be necessary?

Mr. Eden: My announcement was made in view of impending developments, which have satisfactorily taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH AND UNITED STATES CREDITS).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information about the agreement, just concluded in Washington, relating to the currency credit of £5,000,000 granted to the Chinese Government?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed the House on 10th December last that His Majesty's Government had decided in principle to make available to the Chinese Government a credit of £5,000,000 for currency stabilisation purposes. As a result of negotiations

in Washington on the technical measures necessary to carry this decision into effect, an agreement was signed between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government on 26th April. A similar agreement was signed between the United States Government and the Chinese Government on the same day. His Majesty's Government warmly welcome these agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-WEST AFRICA (GERMAN INFILTRATION).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the increase in the number of Nazi agents and the spread of Nazi influence in Tangier, Spanish Morocco and French Morocco, and other French territory in North-west Africa, and of Nazi propaganda amongst the Arabs directed against the Sultan of Morocco?

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give the House as to the numbers of personnel and extent of material belonging to the German Army which are now in, or have recently been in, French or Spanish North Africa?

Mr. Eden: According to my latest information the numbers of the German Armistice Commission in French Morocco are being increased to about 200. No authoritative figures are available about the position in the Spanish zone and in Tangier, but there is evidence of the recent entry of a number of German nationals and of a continuation of German propaganda. His Majesty's Government have for some time past been fully alive to the dangers of German infiltration in North Africa and have tried to open the eyes of the French Government to the danger which this presents to them.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one place where definite counter influence was possible was Tangier and that there, unfortunately, we had to abdicate and surrender?

Mr. Shinwell: When the Foreign Secretary said the Government have endeavoured to open the eyes of the French Government, can he say whether anything


has been done to open the eyes of the Spanish Government or to influence their decision in this matter?

Mr. Eden: I was speaking of the French zone.

Mr. Shinwell: Spanish Morocco was referred to in this Question. Has the Minister anything to say about Nazi intentions there?

Mr. Eden: I would rather confine my answer, if I may, as I deliberately did.

Mr. Maxton: Has the Foreign Secretary no means of getting precise information except in that one area?

Mr. Eden: I did not say that. I said we had information, and I gave it to the House.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman gave information about only one part. If I heard him correctly, he said that there were 200 in one area but that about other areas he knew nothing.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I said that for other areas I had no figures, but that my information was similar.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to make Germany's manoeuvres, as endorsed by Admiral Darlan and his Vichy supporters, known both to France and to Morocco, and especially the latter?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The seven French news bulletins broadcast daily by the B.B.C. are audible in Africa, and two go out on a wavelength specially suitable for North Africa. A half-hour programme, "Les Francais parlent aux Francais," which is broadcast every night, regularly contains items on the necessity of resisting German encroachments in the French colonies, while frequent opportunity is taken to point out that Admiral Darlan's policy of collaboration with Germany, if carried out, will delay the hour of France's freedom.

Captain Plugge: Is it not a fact that the transmissions intended for Morocco are on short waves and that we have scuttled our only long wave, and that short-wave transmission is not broadcasting in the true sense of the word?

Mr. Cooper: My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the reasons why we do not use long-wave transmissions at the present time, and I cannot see any prospect of those reasons ceasing to exist.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now place a copy of the Hoare-Suner provisional agreement on Tangier, with a translation, in the Library?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Minister aware that this agreement will assist Nazi designs to block up the western end of the Mediterranean, and will he repudiate it?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I cannot give any such undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC AIR SERVICE.

Wing-Commander Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the announcement made by Major-General H. A. Arnold, Chief of the United States Army Air Corps, to the effect that the United States of America would like to see a better means of air communication between the two countries so that it would not take so long to get personnel back and forth; and will he take the necessary steps to expedite the commencement of the North Atlantic service to be operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am glad to be able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that it is intended to resume an air transport service across the North Atlantic during the coming summer for purposes connected with the war. The operation and management of the service will be undertaken by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT FACTORY SITES

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he can give an assurance that the local sanitary authorities are now always consulted, especially with


regard to water supply and drainage, before sites are developed by his Department or contractors acting on their behalf?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Lewellin): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: How does my hon. and gallant Friend reconcile that with a letter which was sent to his Department from the clerk to a council whose surveyor informed his council that work was commenced on at least four sites in his district during the past few weeks without reference to the council or to himself?

Colonel Llewellin: I have no knowledge of the facts in that letter, but if my hon. Friend will send me a copy, I will investgate the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (DETENTION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether the memorial sent from the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union in Jamaica has been considered; and whether, in view of the assurances contained in the memorial, he is prepared either to release Alexander Bustamante from detention, or, if he is held to have been guilty of an offence, to see that he is brought for trial before the proper court?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The memorial has been considered. My Noble Friend decided to adhere to the decision, of which my hon. Friend has already been informed, that Mr. Bustamante should be detained for as long as is considered necessary in the interests of public security.

Mr. Adams: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the continuous detention of this man, without being charged or without trial, is undesirable?

Mr. Hall: Mr. Bustamante could have appealed against his detention to one of the advisory committees which was set up, but he has not done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

UNLICENSED MOTOR CARS (MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention

has been drawn to the fact that a considerable number of privately-owned motor cars used by members of the Forces, both officers and other ranks, have no current licence; and whether he is aware that in the area of one county council nearly one-third of the unlicensed cars which were observed belonged to the above-mentioned category; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I am informed that in the licensing area to which my hon. Friend refers, about one-quarter of the cases reported this year concerned members of the Forces. Proceedings were ordered in all but two of these cases, in which a mitigated penalty was imposed. Action is taken by the licensing authorities in all appropriate cases reported.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Air Ministry, the War Office and the Admiralty to this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: No, Sir, I could not do that; this was done by private people.

Mr. Leach: Does not the Minister think that in the national interest there are far too many private motor cars on the road?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.

WAR TRANSPORT COUNCIL.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the War Transport Council is not intended to supersede the Railway Executive Committee or the Transport Advisory Council, which is a statutory body and to which transport problems can be referred, why the Transport Advisory Council were not approached to nominate a representative or representatives to the War Transport Council; and whether he will indicate what important problem the newly appointed body will consider upon which the Transport Advisory Council are unable to tender advice?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The War Transport Council is a small body, the members of which were chosen, not as representatives of particular interests, but as individuals able to help me in the continuous effort of strengthening the war plans of my Department. It is in no


sense in substitution for, or replacement of, the Transport Advisory Council, which is a large body of 30 members representing various interests, and which by reason of its size and constitution is not a convenient instrument for the purpose for which the War Transport Council has been set up. The Chairman of the Transport Advisory Council, who is an independent member not representing any particular interest, has been appointed as a member of the War Transport Council.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the difficulties confronting transport at the moment, has the Minister considered the advisability of the Government taking control of the whole of the country's transport, and, if so, at what decision has he arrived?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is a very big question, of which I should want long notice.

RAILWAY AGREEMENT.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make with regard to a revision of the railway agreement; and whether he is giving consideration to the proposal made by Mr. Theodore In stone, a copy of which has been sent him?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am unable to make a statement in this matter at present. I have noted the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers.

WAR WORKERS' FACILITIES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to diminish the prevailing traffic congestion which prevents the proper transport of war workers at certain hours, he has considered the desirability of an adjustment in the time of opening and closing of shops and business premises, the transit of whose employés during the hours indicated is a material cause of the existing traffic situation?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. I have no information showing that transport difficulties would at the present time be substantially relieved by any change in the opening and closing hours of shops and business premises, but if my hon. Friend will send me information about any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

Mr. Adams: Surely it is not a question of sending particulars of a single case. It is general knowledge that the vast number of employés from these premises—

Mr. Speaker rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

NATIONAL ANTHEMS (BROADCASTING).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister if Information the principles governing the playing of Allied National Anthems by the British Broadcasting Corporation on Sunday evenings; and the reasons for the discrimination between one Ally and another?

Mr. Cooper: The B.B.C. play the National Anthems of those countries who have been our Allies in the war and whose citizens are fighting at our side. If the Question is prompted by the fact that the Abyssinian National Anthem has not yet been played, I would inform the hon. Member this is because at the outbreak of war no properly constituted Government of Abyssinia existed. As soon as the Emperor has reached his capital, which we hope will be in the near future, the Abyssinian National Anthem will be played with the others.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say on what principle the Luxemburg National Anthem was played on three occasions?

Mr. Cooper: The Luxemburg people are fighting to the best of their ability on our side. They had a Government which was compelled to flee before the Germans, and I hope that one day it will be finally restored to its rightful place.

Mr. Mander: But why ration them to three?

Mr. George Griffiths: Why could we not have the Wolverhampton National Anthem?

Mr. Cooper: In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), there are a great many National Anthems, and it is under consideration whether it would not be a good plan to play a few in turn.

Mr. Maxton: What about saving time and playing the "Internationale"?

STAFF

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Information whether men employed on journalistic work at his Department are regarded under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and protected work as editorial workers or Civil servants; how many are between the ages of 30 to 35 years; and for how many members of the Ministry staff exemption or deferment has been granted?

Mr. Cooper: The male staff of the Ministry of Information are regarded as included in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations as Civil servants, whether they are employed on journalistc or on other work. Excluding clerical and minor grades there are at present 91 male officers of the Ministry between the ages of 30 and 35; 10 officers have been granted deferment of military service.

PROPAGANDA FILMS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Information how many film studios in the British Isles are being used for the making of propaganda films?

Mr. Cooper: Films commissioned by the Ministry of Information are now being produced at 14 studios in this country.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the fact that a large proportion of studios in this country have been requisitioned for other purposes, and considering the importance of the propaganda value of good British films, will the Minister make representations that the film industry should not be stifled in this way?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that the production of Ministry of Information films is stifling the industry; rather is it encouraging the industry.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is not the Ministry of Information concerned with British films generally?

Mr. Cooper: We produce films of a propaganda nature.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WORKS AND BUILDINGS (CONSULTATIVE PANEL).

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will give the names of the members of the Scottish

Planning Committee under Lord Balfour of Burleigh; on whose recommendation they were appointed; and what qualifications the members possess to carry out the duties of the Committee?

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether full consultation with all Scottish Departments and interests concerned took place prior to the appointment of the Scottish Consultative Committee on Planning?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): I am sending my hon. Friends copies of the initial list of members of my Noble Friend's Consultative Panel, to which I referred during the Debate on 19th March. So far as the Scottish members of the Panel are concerned, the appointments were made after consultation with my right, hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would add that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) is referring to the Reconstruction Parliamentary Group, this is an unofficial body, and appointments to it were made without reference to any Government Department.

Mr. McKinlay: In view of the laughter which has been caused throughout Scotland by the names on the list, will my hon. Friend take the necessary steps to see that the local authorities are consulted?

Mr. Hicks: It is. not a representative body, as the hon. Member knows.

BOMBED-OUT FAMILIES (RE-HOUSING).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that municipalities throughout Scotland have thousands of partially completed houses which could be made available to re-house bombed-out families at little cost; and will he give this matter his consideration as an alternative to the wasteful method of using condemned property?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): So far as the shortage of labour and materials permit, local authorities in Scotland are free to complete partially built houses. It is obvious, however, that such houses when completed cannot be held empty against the possibility of their being required for bombed-out families. In some cases new


houses have in fact been used to accommodate families rendered homeless, but in order to supplement such accommodation my right hon. Friend has authorised the licensing of condemned property for temporary use under proper safeguards.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland see to it, where houses have been damaged and partially repaired, that landlords do not receive the same rent? Will he also see that the same thing applies to houses which have been condemned?

Mr. Westwood: That is another question, but I will convey the point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McKinlay: The Question refers to "partially completed houses." Is it not a fact that we have thousands of such houses which could be made wind-and-weather proof and be used as hostels for those who have been bombed out?

Mr. Westwood: So far as the shortage of material and labour will allow, we have enabled local authorities to complete any houses which are partially constructed.

Mr. Maxton: What is happening is that men and material are issued readily to deal with houses which have been battered, but men and material will not be permitted to complete partially completed houses.

Mr. Westwood: We have placed no limitation on the powers of local authorities in Scotland. Under the priority scheme they can get both material and labour to complete these houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

SHELTER (GOVERNMENT STAFF).

Mr. Silkin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that in a building belonging to a commercial undertaking, part of which is occupied by a Government Department, the former refuse to permit the staff of the Department sleeping in the building to use the air-raid shelter in the basement during air-raids; whether, in consequence, casualties including loss of life were sustained by the staff in a recent raid; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into all

the circumstances and take urgent and appropriate action?

Mr. Hicks: The basement shelter in the building in question can only accommodate a part of the total number of persons who work in the building. It is allocated to persons occupying the upper floors and those occupying the lower floors have the use of the corridors on these floors, which are up to the standard required by the Civil Defence Act. Up to the present the Government staffs have, in the main, been accommodated on the lower floors. During the raid in question, members of the staff who sought access to the basement shelter were admitted. The explosion of a heavy bomb immediately outside the building caused extensive damage to the windows and internal partitions, and unfortunately one man lost his life. Arrangements have been made to place basement shelter space at the disposal of the staff who remain in the building during the night.

FIRE PREVENTION (SCHOOLS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the varying conditions under which schoolchildren are being encouraged to act as fire-watchers in schools, and the fact that some under 14 years of age have been so employed; that, in some cases, the cost of providing food for pupils engaged in fire-watching has fallen upon the teachers; and whether he has issued, or will issue, advice on these matters to the local education authorities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): In Circular 1542, of which I am sending the hon: Member a copy, it was suggested that school fire prevention parties might be recruited from, amongst other sources, older students and trainees. It was not contemplated that schoolchildren under 16 years of age, which is the minimum age specified in the Defence Regulations for compulsory enrolment, should be employed on fire prevention duties, and I should strongly deprecate any such practice. I have seen reports in the Press about the employment as fire watchers of children under 14 in one area, and I am taking the matter up with the local education authority concerned. I have no


evidence that the cost of providing food for members of school fire parties has fallen upon teachers, and the need should not arise since local education authorities were authorised in the Circular to meet reasonable claims for expenditure on extra meals and travelling expenses actually incurred by members of fire parties in schools within the public system of education.

Mr. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that local authorities which are making no provision for children and teachers volunteering for this work shall do so?

Mr. Ede: I think the publicity which has been given by the Question and Answer will assist in that way.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the case of Blackpool?

Mr. Ede: That is the case to which I referred. I have made strong representations in that area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PROMOTION (OFFICERS).

Commander Bower: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether promotions of younger Naval Captains to the Flag list, under the Order in Council, dated 4th April, 1941, will be made half- yearly or at any time; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty of make wide use of the power conferred on it?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): Promotion will normally be made half-yearly; as regards the second part of the Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 23rd April.

Commander Bower: Will my hon. and gallant Friend urge upon the First Lord of the Admiralty that the success of this scheme will depend upon its being applied widely and boldly, and not in the way of an occasional promotion as a sort of sop to public opinion?

Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Commander Bower: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the

intention of the Board to lower substantially the ages of the promotion zones for officers, to the rank of Commander and Captain respectively, in order to ensure a constant normal supply of young captains and Flag officers?

Captain Hudson: No, Sir. The period for which officers must serve in the rank of either lieutenant-commander or commander before receiving further promotion cannot be reduced, but when the present regulations have taken full effect it will be possible for outstanding officers to reach Flag rank in the very early forties.

LOST SHIPS (COURTS-MARTIAL)

Commander Bower: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty policy regarding the holding of courts-martial on the survivors of His Majesty's ships which are lost, as outlined by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on 25th May, 1917, to hold courts-martial except in cases where there are no survivors or in those instances in which it would obviously be a waste of time to do so, still holds good and on how many occasions such courts-martial have taken place during the present war?

Captain Hudson: When one of His Majesty's ships is lost it is the practice to hold a Board of Inquiry, which can be readily assembled, to investigate thoroughly the. cause of the loss and any matters connected with it. To hold a general court-martial on the survivors in such cases would be a waste of time since it could do little, if anything, more than duplicate the work of the Board" of Inquiry. It has, therefore, been decided not to hold such courts-martial in this war, and none have in fact been held. This, of course, in no way precludes the trial, on a specific charge, of anyone to whom blame is considered to be attributable in connection with the loss of the ship, and a number of such specific courts-martial have been held.

Commander Bower: While realising that some change has been necessary in the ancient practice of holding such courts-martial, does the First Lord of the Admiralty investigate the question of what safeguard there is now to prevent the Board of Admiralty being judges in their own case should their own actions have been the principal factor in the loss of one of His Majesty's ships?

Captain Hudson: I will see that my right hon. Friend the First Lord reads that Supplementary Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are normally required by infantry battalions; and how many of these would be utilised to look after the sergeants' mess?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are not allocated to infantry battalions, but to infantry training centres. The number of posts at an infantry training centre which may be filled by Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel is 90, and of these 8 are for the sergeants' mess.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the natural inclination for cooking which women possess rather than men, would it not be a good idea if women could be utilised in the cookhouses of the mobile battalions as well?

Mr. Law: I do not think it would be practicable to have women in fighting battalions which might have to fight in any theatre of war and in any conceivable circumstances.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my previous Question I referred to the fact that the women should be used in battalions at home?

Mr. Law: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that units have to go abroad at very short notice sometimes.

ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to replace men in the Royal Army Pay Corps by women so far as it is practicable to do so?

Mr. Law: It is the policy of my Department to replace fit men in the Royal Army Pay Corps by men of a lower medical category or members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service wherever possible. But it is essential to retain a sufficient though very small nucleus of fully-trained staff in order to maintain the pay services of the Army.

Mr. Thorne: If women are engaged, how are they graded for payment?

Mr. Law: At the Auxiliary Territorial Service rates.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any military training is provided for men serving in the Royal Army Pay Corps?

Mr. Law: Recruits in the Royal Army Pay Corps are not sent to training units but receive instruction in the bare essentials of military training at Army Pay Offices, to which they are posted direct.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend sure that that always takes place, as my information is that some of these men get no military training at all?

Mr. Law: They get the very bare minimum of military training in order to inculcate a sense of discipline.

Colonel Arthur Evans: In view of modern conditions which make troops on lines of communication and at bases liable to surprise attacks from parachute troops, and in view of the embarrassment caused to the Commander-in-Chief during retreat of a large number of men who have received no training whatever to protect themselves or others, will my hon. Friend see to it that troops despatched abroad in departmental organisations receive an adequate amount of training before they go?

WELFARE OFFICERS.

Colonel A. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether welfare officers are posted to the staff of the general officers commanding in chief of all formations of British troops serving overseas; and whether he will furnish full particulars of their rank, date of appointment and state whether they are paid or unpaid;
(2) the number of officers comprising the Directorate-General of Welfare and Education at the War Office, giving their rank and appointment; whether paid or unpaid; and furnish similar information covering commands in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Law: I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Evans: Can the Minister say whether welfare officers are appointed before the troops go abroad?

Mr. Law: That is left to the discretion of the General Officer Commanding.

Following is the statement: —

1. WELFARE.


(A) War Office.


APPOINTMENT.
RANK.


1 Director-General
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Major-General.


I Deputy Director-General
…
…
…
…
…
…
Brigadier.


2 Assistant Directors of Welfare
…
…
…
…
…
Lieutenant-colonel.


5 Deputy Assistant Directors of Welfare
…
…
…
…
Major.


7 Staff captains
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
{1 Major. 6 Captains.


1 Staff lieutenant
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Lieutenant.


All these officers are paid from public funds.

(B) Home Commands. 


The establishment of welfare officers at Command Headquarters is:—


Command.
Command Welfare Officer (Colonel).
Assistant Command Welfare Officer (Lt.-Col.).
Administrative Officer (Major).
Administrative Officer (Captain).


Eastern (a)
…
…
…
1
1
4
3


South-Eastern
…
…
…
1
1
2
2


Northern
…
…
…
…
1
1
2
2


Scottish
…
…
…
…
1
1
2
2


Southern
…
…
…
…
1
1
2
2


Western
…
…
…
…
1
1
2
2


Anti-Aircraft
…
…
…
1
—
1
2


Northern Ireland District
…
1
—
—
1


(a) Also for London District. All these officers are unpaid.


(C) In addition to the above there are some 1,000 welfare officers in the United Kingdom, all of whom are unpaid and some of whom are civilians.


(D) Welfare officers are not posted by the War Office to the staff of formations serving overseas, but General Officers Commanding-in-Chief may appoint unpaid officers to supervise arrangements for the welfare of their troops if the circumstances warrant it.

II. EDUCATION.


(A) War Office.


APPOINTMENT.
RANK.


1
 Director-General (the same Director-General covers both Welfare and Education).



1
Inspector, Army Educational Corps 
…
…
…
…
Brigadier.


1
Assistant Inspector, Army Educational Corps
…
…
Lieutenant-colonel.


1
General Staff Officer, 2nd Grade
…
…
…
…
Lieutenant-colonel.


1
Military Assistant to Director of Army Education
…
…
Major.


(The Director of Army Education is a civilian, and he has two Assistant Secretaries (civilian) to assist him.)


All these officers are paid from public funds.

(B) Commands and lower formations.


Command.
Lt.-colonel.
Majors.
Captains.
Subalterns.


Eastern
…
…
…
…
1
4
3
8


South-Eastern
…
…
…
1
5
5
11


Northern
…
…
…
…
1
4
9
11


Scottish
…
…
…
…
1
5
4
6


Southern
…
…
…
…
1
7
8
8


Western
…
…
…
…
{(Colonel)}
6
2
7


Anti-Aircraft
…
…
…
1
2
12
1


Northern Ireland District…
…
—
1
2
2


London District
…
…
…
—
1
—
1


All these officers are paid from public funds.

HEAVY TANKS (PRODUCTION).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied with the output of heavy tanks, and with the provision of spare parts for those in use?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I am glad to say that the output of heavy tanks has shown and is showing continuous and gratifying expansion. A definite proportion of spares is an essential part of the programme, but the extent of that proportion must always be adjusted in accordance with operational experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to state why a pension has been refused to 4915129, Sergeant J. Foster, of Wolverhampton, who was graded A1 when he entered the Army on 25th August, 1939, and was discharged as C3 on 16th June, 1940, as there was,no previous history of chest trouble, but on discharge he was suffering from chronic bronchitis?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The hon. Member would appear to be misinformed. Mr. Foster himself admitted long-standing chest trouble and this has been confirmed by clinical and X-ray examination. Pension could only be granted if it could be certified that his service had brought about material aggravation of this condition. I am advised by my medical officers, however, that Mr. Foster's service during the present war cannot be held to have caused any such aggravation. in these circumstances I am unable to grant a pension in Mr. Foster's case.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that it is the Minister who is misinformed? Is he aware that this man was taken into the Army after medical examination as A1, and after nearly a year's service was discharged as C3, and is it not intolerable that in those conditions the Department should seek to put their responsibility aside?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no evidence whatever that Mr. Foster was graded A1. He joined the Territorial

Army in 1937, and was embodied on 25th August, 1939. There is no record of any examination at the latter date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Do not ask me that question. The man told the invaliding board that he had suffered from bronchitis off and on since childhood. His service was all at home.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that every week there are cases of this kind and in view of that, does he not consider it absolutely essential that an independent arbitration tribunal should now be set up?

Sir W. Womersley: There are one or two cases coming up each week out of the millions of men who have joined the Forces. There is an appeal to an independent medical specialist and that is the appeal which we grant to anyone in whose case there is any doubt whatever. In this case there is not the slightest possible doubt.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can my right Friend say—

Mr. Speaker: These supplementary questions go beyond the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make known the exact position of our Service men who become prisoners of war in respect of pay and allowances and deductions; and what change, it any, is made when it is known they are prisoners of war?

Mr. Law: Regulations regarding the issue of pay and allowances in respect of prisoners of war have been published in Army Order 71, 1940, and Army Order 36, 1941, of which I am sending my hon. Friend copies.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister circulate the information in the Official Report so that everyone will know the position, because inquiries are constantly being made to us, and we are not able to state the position?

Mr. Law: I will certainly consider whether it can be circulated, but the information asked for is rather long. Broadly speaking, subject to minor modifications, as far as "other ranks"


are concerned, pay and allowances are exactly as before a man was taken prisoner. As far as officers are concerned, the only deduction is that made in respect of pay issued by the detaining Power.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that thousands of National Health insured members are likely to be in arrears, and lose benefits, through not knowing what to do about loss and destruction of National Health Insurance cards, due to bombing; and will he arrange a broadcast supplying this information, and issue to approved societies on demand Forms X219 (c) and X79 (c) to enable them to complete particulars?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am aware that many stamped National Health Insurance cards have been lost or destroyed by enemy action. In order that the risk of loss of benefit may be minimised, all approved societies and local authorities have now been specially advised of the simplified procedure to be followed in reporting such loss or destruction to the Central Department, so that credit may be allowed for the missing stamps with the utmost speed. My right hon. Friend will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestions regarding further publicity and the issue of forms to approved societies on demand.

Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Lady co-ordinate the services so that approved societies obtain what is actually required? Is she aware that that leaflet only came out last week, and that in reply to my Question the hon. Lady stated these two pamphlets were required? I am asking the Ministry to supply approved societies with what is necessary so that members will not lose their benefit. Are these two circulars sent on demand to the society, and, if not, why not?

Miss Horsbrugh: They are sent on demand. As I stated in my reply, these are forms to be filled up by the employer or person whose card has been lost. Arrangements are made whereby forms can be obtained at post offices or information centres, where help is also given in filling them up. The reason for not sending them except on demand is that the

approved society would have to send them back again. I think the hon. Member will agree that there is much co-operation and that we are pressing on with the scheme.

Mr. Logan: I know the subject, and the hon. Lady does not.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. I raised this question on the 10th of the month, and I waited many days before I received a reply. When I received a reply, the Ministry sent out a circular which does not meet the situation. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the earliest occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN DOCTORS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Colonel A. Evans: asked the Minister of Health how many friendly alien and Allied alien doctors with special qualifications are still unemployed; how many Czechs with medical degrees in their own country are now studying for English degrees; whether this necessity must now be imposed on qualified men, particularly since special scholarships had to be granted to enable them to study; whether there is a surplus of army doctors with the Czech Army; and whether, in view of the shortage of doctors, particularly in reception areas, the fact that alien doctors are barred from private practice, and the appeal that has been made to the United States of America for 1,000 doctors to serve with the British Red Cross, he will take steps immediately to absorb all unemployed doctors, irrespective of nationality, and permit alien doctors already qualified in their own country to practise without taking English degrees?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am not in possession of the information requested in the first, second and fourth parts of the Question. As to the third and fifth parts, the Medical Practitioners (Temporary Registration) Order, 1941, provides a wide field of employment for American and Allied alien doctors and refugee doctors of enemy nationality in hospitals and other approved institutions without the necessity of obtaining British medical qualifications, and their absorption into this service is proceeding steadily. I am advised that linguistic and other difficulties make it inadvisable to allow these doctors to engage in domiciliary practice.

Colonel Evans: In view of the grave shortage of doctors in this country at the present time, will the hon. Lady ensure that the services of all friendly Allied and alien doctors, who register themselves and their qualifications at the Ministry of Health, will be available in time of need?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is almost a complete breakdown at the present moment regarding the employment of friendly Allied and alien doctors in this country? Is she aware that there are 700 such doctors in this country, and that we are asking for 1,000 doctors from the United States? The whole thing is wrong.

Mr. G. Strauss: May we take it that these 700 doctors will be absorbed in medical work in this country if they register and speak the language?

Miss Horsbrugh: I could not say without notice what is the number of alien doctors in this country, but I can assure hon. Members that all will be used in hospitals and institutions, and that the general scheme for reorganisation of medical practitioners is going on.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY (RATION).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will increase the ration of corn for poultry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): Rations for poultry are governed by the quantity of feeding-stuffs available and could only be increased by reducing the quantities available for other classes of livestock or for direct human consumption. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to increase them.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Why is it so important that a racehorse gets a ration of 15 lbs. of corn per day, and so unimportant that thousands of poor people are having to kill off their poultry because they cannot get sufficient food for laying purposes?

Mr. Williams: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be under a delusion. Instead of killing off their poultry, small poultry keepers have been increasing enormously.

SHEEP DISEASES (VACCINES AND SERA).

Mr. Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken to provide sheep farmers with a supply of vaccines and serums against sheep illnesses at reduced prices; and with what result?

Mr. T. Williams: My hon. Friend may be aware of the arrangements under which vaccines and sera are supplied at reduced prices in Scotland to members of the Animal Diseases Research Association and in North-East England to subscribers to the Alan Duke of Northumberland Memorial Fund. On the recommendation of the Sheep Diseases Committee of the Agricultural Research Council, endorsed by the Council, discussions at which trade representatives were present were initiated by the Ministry towards the end of last year with the object of securing the introduction, on a wider basis, of a scheme for the supply of vaccines and sera at reduced prices. So far, however, it has proved impracticable to devise arrangements acceptable to all interested parties, but the question is still under active consideration.

Mr. Robertson: Who are the interested parties who are holding this up?

Mr. Williams: The meetings referred to were attended by representatives of the trade, of the Agricultural Research Council and of both agricultural Departments.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the drug houses, which are making very substantial profits on vaccines, are the sole cause of the holding-up of this important work, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that their resistance is broken down immediately and vaccines brought within the reach of fanners who cannot afford to buy them?

Mr. Williams: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CHEESE RATION.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the surface


workers at coal mines for an addition of cheese to the same amount as the underground worker?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply yesterday to a similar Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).

POTATO CONTROL, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of Scottish potato merchants since authority was taken from the area officer in Edinburgh, and transferred to Oxford, resulting in delay and indecision; and whether he will improve the position by reverting to the practice in force prior to February.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. Apart from my hon. Friend's recent letter to my Noble Friend, no representations have been received from merchants. A reply will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as the necessary inquiries have been made.

Mr. Mathers: Will an endeavour be made to see that the satisfaction which prevailed when this office was at Edinburgh will not be discontinued because it has been moved to Oxford?

Major Lloyd George: If there were any cause for dissatisfaction, and we were satisfied that there was dissatisfaction, we would consider it, but at the moment we have no reason to think that there is.

FISH.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that the failure to control prices of fresh fish results in fancy prices being paid by merchants with wealthy customers while shops serving working-class areas cannot obtain supplies at prices their customers can afford to pay; and whether he will remedy this position?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware of the statement made by my Noble Friend on 22nd April, in another place, to the effect that he is co-operating with those who trade in fish with a view to securing reasonable distribution at a reasonable price and

that if the fish trade is unable to secure this he will not hesitate to take such steps as may be necessary to attain this end.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not the practice for the Ministry to accept the decision of the local committee with regard to the setting-up of shops of this kind, and why was this not done in the case to which I have drawn attention?

EXPECTANT AND NURSING MOTHERS.

Dr. Howitt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the advisability of granting an extra half ration of butter and an extra half ration of sugar to all pregnant women for the last six months of the pregnancy, and for six months after delivery if the mother is nursing her baby?

Major Lloyd George: Consideration has been given to my hon. Friend's suggestions, but the Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council have advised that no extra allowances of any rationed food are necessary for expectant mothers. With regard to nursing mothers, a child's ration book is issued by the local food office as soon as a birth is notified, the rations obtainable with this book being intended for the use of the mother.

Dr. Howitt: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the majority of babies are born perfectly healthy and well nourished during the war, but owing to rationing it is often a big strain on the mother and does not give a fair chance afterwards, either to her or to the child?

Major Lloyd George: I should not be aware of that, but I would remind my hon. Friend that we are guided in all these things by the best possible advice that we can get.

SEAMEN'S RATIONS.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether extra seamen's rations can be allowed to the crews of tugs when on duty for not less than 24 hours?

Major Lloyd George: The adoption of the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Question presents considerable practicable difficulties but the possibility of making some provision for such men is under


active examination. The scales of rations allowed to seamen employed in the home and coastwise trade would not be refused to the crews of tugs engaged in regular service at sea.

BIRD SEED.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the question of food for cage birds and give the lovers of these birds a better ration for the birds?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on 18th March. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Press notice referred to in that reply.

SUGAR CONFECTIONERY.

Mr. Denville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the supply of barley sugar, toffee and other nourishing sweets, the consumers of which are usually young people and children, has been so reduced that in many cases supplies- are practically unobtainable, and are estimated for April and May at 40 per cent, of pre-war, out of which military and industrial canteens have first of all to be supplied; and whether he will undertake to increase supplies in a way that will ensure a fairer distribution?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend is fully alive to the necessity, particularly in the interest of young people and children, for maintaining the supply of sweets at the highest possible level; this, however, is chiefly dependent on the amount of sugar that can be allocated for the manufacture of such goods. Whilst it is impossible at present to increase the amount of sugar allocated, my Noble Friend is nevertheless taking steps to see that the amount of sugar confectionery available is fairly distributed throughout the country. Consultation with the industry with regard to this problem of distribution is now proceeding. The proportion of sugar confectionery as distinct from chocolate goods, which is supplied to military and industrial canteens, is quite small.

Mr. Denville: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at Newcastle, for instance, children are wandering around

with pennies in their hands unable to buy sweets of any description?

Major Lloyd George: I am sure that that is not confined to Newcastle. I would point out once again that the real trouble is that supplies are very short; and when we have examined complaints we have found that the trouble is not confined to one place, but that the particular place, considering the shortage, has a fair allocation.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is not the effect of reducing the amount of sweets consumption extremely good for the children's health?

Mr. G. Strauss: Would it be possible to take steps to see that special supplies of sweets go to towns which are particularly liable to be blitzed?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the difficulties. When we ask manufacturers to divert supplies, we have always to bear in mind that they cannot do it in exact proportion, because you must leave some for areas which are liable to be bombed.

MEAT ALLOCATION.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, between 1st and 21st February, 1941, Messrs. Lewis Stores, Glasgow, sold, approximately, three tons of boiled beef ham manufactured from rump steak, and supplied by J. P. Louden, 34, Spoutmouth, Glasgow; that the steak was issued on instructions from Colwyn Bay; and will he take steps to ascertain who issued such instructions, the name of the wholesale firm who supplied J. P. Louden, the name of the meat agent who released the steak, and place Group I manufacturers under the control of food committees?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the quantity of beef ham sold by Lewis's Stores at their Glasgow store during the period in question, but this commodity was not manufactured from rump steak supplied by Messrs. J. P. Louden, 34, Spoutmouth, Glasgow. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 9th April, no rump steak has been allocated to Messrs. Louden and accordingly the second, third and fourth parts of the Question do not arise. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not prepared to adopt the proposal

RESTAURANTS

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will reorganise the rationing system so as to secure greater equality of sacrifice and economy of food supplies, in view of the fact that the well-to-do are now able to take a daily meat meal in restaurants besides consuming their full ration at home, and supplementing their meat ration with fish and poultry, tea with coffee and jam with honey, while working-class mothers, with children, can neither afford to purchase these luxuries nor to frequent even the cheapest restaurants?

Major Lloyd George: I shall be happy to consider any specific proposals which my hon. Friend can suggest, but I do not agree with the implications in the last part of the Question, and I am proposing to deal with this matter in the Debate later to-day.

Miss Rathbone: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that it conduces to the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic if everybody is allowed to eat and drink in restaurants as much as they please to the full extent of their capacity?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Miss Rathbone: On a point of Order. As I have asked only one Supplementary Question may I not be allowed to finish it?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of the quantity of supplementaries, but a question of the quality.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask if you would be good enough to inform me why the effect of this on national security is not a proper Supplementary Question to ask?

Mr. Speaker: Because it is a subject for Debate and not for a Supplementary Question.

Miss Rathbone: I beg to give notice, in view of the fact that I have not been permitted to receive a full answer to this Question, that I will call attention to the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: In giving that notice, it is unnecessary to make reflections on the Chair.

BEER

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the concern among the industrial workers in the City of Birmingham because of the limited amount of beer obtainable; and will he take steps to remedy this, in view of the food value of beer, especially for those engaged in heavy work?

Major Lloyd George: I know of no reason for a shortage of beer in Birmingham or elsewhere and am satisfied that any shortage that may have occurred will prove to have been of a temporary character. I am, however, causing inquiries to be made.

Sir Smedley Crooke: How can my hon. and gallant Friend expect men to do the necessary work for the war if they cannot get their beer?

Major Lloyd George: We must remember that the war is still on, and while it is important that supplies should be distributed as evenly as possible, we can distribute to those concerned only what the supply warrants. In this particular case they are getting exactly the same as everybody else.

Mr. Mathers: Is the claim made that there might be a shortage of everything but beer?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. I said that all these commodities are in short supply and that people are getting their ration of beer as of other things as well.

TINNED FOODS.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the large consumption of tinned foods which is taking place, he has considered imposing greater restriction on the sale of such food, in order to conserve it for a time of greater scarcity?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, but, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) on 5th March, I do not consider it desirable to give advance information on matters of this kind.

Miss Rathbone: May we not at least know whether there is really any restric-


tion in the sale of tinned foods which could be perfectly well kept for a time of greater scarcity?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member has repeated the Question on the Paper, and I can only repeat the answer. I cannot give information in advance on this matter, which is always under consideration.

Earl Winterton: Can my hon. and gallant Friend, in view of the fact that his attention has been drawn to this matter by a number of Questions in the House, give any indication when he will deal with what is rapidly becoming a real scandal?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know what the Noble Lord means by that. This matter was dealt with long before any Questions were asked in the House. The matter is under consideration, and I am sure that the Noble Lord will appreciate what I mean when I say that this is not a matter about which we can give advance information.

MEAT AND BACON RATIONS.

Mr. Mort: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the precedent of giving special consideration to certain classes of labour, cheese for miners and agricultural workers, he will extend the same consideration to men performing heavy work, such as steel, tin-plate and dock workers and give them a pro rata increase in their meat or bacon ration?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, my Noble Friend is not prepared to grant supplementary rations of meat or bacon to any category of worker. This could duly be done by reducing the general ration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-BRITISH PATENTS (ROYALTIES).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government, or any firm manufacturing on behalf of the Government, are paying or allowing or crediting any royalty to any non-British firm, or is any payment to be made in the future for royalties on any products manufactured for war purposes; if so, will he arrange for the names of the firms, and amounts allowed, to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): For the position regarding enemy-owned patents, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) on 25th June last. As regards other foreign patents, the normal procedure is followed. Disclosure of names and amounts would not be in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

ENGINEERING APPRENTICES, MANCHESTER DISTRICT.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour the present position with regard to the recent strike of engineering apprentices in the Manchester district; and, if the strike is finally settled, the terms of settlement?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Work has been resumed, and any question affecting the position of apprentices can, if necessary, be raised and dealt with in a constitutional manner through the recognised procedure.

TRAINING CENTRES (WAGES).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour the weekly wage paid to single men of 21 years of age at Ministry of Labour training centres, and the length of time for which this wage may be paid?

Mr. Tomlinson: These rates have been fixed so as to be approximately equivalent to those paid to men entering engineering workshops direct for similar employment. Single or married men of 21 and over at Government training centres receive as a starting wage 60s. 6d. per week, and three increments of 5s. a week conditional upon their passing a qualifying test for each increment, making a total wage in the last stage of training of 75s. 6d. a week. Each test is given so soon as it is considered that the man is capable of passing it, but on the average the interval between the tests is about a month. The length of the courses is from four to five months, except in the case of draughtsmen. These men go through a preliminary period in the workshop before undertaking actual training in draughtsmanship. The wage during this period is 60s. 6d., but no increments


are given Thereafter increments are given as in the other courses. The starting wage under the other training schemes of the Ministry is the same, but in view of the fact that the courses are shorter and less intensive no increments are given.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, that in some cases men are being offered as much as 79s. 6d. a week for two or three months, and does he not think that that is liable to cause grave maladjustment in industry when many of these men cannot hope to receive the same emoluments when once they take up work?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware of any cases in which more than the amount specified by the Ministry is being paid in the Ministry's establishments.

EMPLOYERS (REIMBURSEMENT).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour from what source industrial organisations will be reimbursed for payments they make to employés under Statutory Order No. 302 of 1941, for maintaining on full pay employés for whom there is temporarily no work?

Mr. Tomlinson: The position as regards reimbursement of these payments is the same as in any other case in which the obligation to pay minimum rates of wages is imposed by law.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my hon. Friend say how industrialists who are manufacturing on fixed-price contracts for the Government or for the export trade can hope to reimburse themselves with these amounts? Will he say whether it has been considered what obligations the Unemployment Insurance Fund might have to undertake in making contributions in those cases?

Mr. Tomlinson: Notice would need to be given of the latter part of the question in order that a full answer might be given. With regard to the first part, I suggest that they should take the same steps as are taken by other people who do exactly the same thing in normal circumstances.

Mr. Simmonds: But this money cannot be obtained from exporters or from extras on Government contracts, and how

are industrialists to find this money, particularly when they are small men?

Mr. Tomlinson: This arises only as and when supplies may be short or for some other reason an industry is unable to function. In these circumstances, if cases of particular hardship are brought to the notice of the Ministry, inquiries will have to be made. May I also suggest that the Assistance Board will always be amenable to reason when such cases come before them?

Mr. Gallacher: If any employers are in difficulties, cannot they apply to the Public Assistance Committee?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have just intimated that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (TRAINING CAMP, INSPECTION).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that for two days prior to the recent visit of an eminent person to a Royal Air Force training camp, of which he has been informed, flying and other training were stopped in order to prepare the camp for inspection, and that aviation petrol was used to cleanse the floors of the hangars; and whether he will take steps to prevent such waste of time, labour and material?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): My hon. Friend has been misinformed. I am advised that there was no interruption of training prior to or during the visit referred to, nor were the hangars cleansed with petrol as suggested.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I received these allegations from two men serving in the camp whose honesty I have no reason to doubt, and that I am glad to hear he has been able to refute them?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about the amount of the Fiduciary Note Issue?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. Owing to the growing demand for currency, an increase


in the Fiduciary Note Issue is necessary, and, acting under the power conferred by Section 8 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, the Treasury have authorised an increase in the amount of the Fiduciary Note Issue by £50,000,000 to £680,000,000 as from to-day. The Treasury Minute will be laid before Parliament forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

WITHDRAWAL OF EMPIRE FORCES.

Mr. Noel-Baker (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the attitude of the Greek Government to the decision to withdraw the British Forces from Greece?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, pending any statement that may be made in the course of next week's Debate, I think that the House should know at once that on 21st April the Greek President of the Council communicated to His Majesty's Minister at Athens a note of which the following is a translation:
The Greek Government, while expressing to the British Government and to the gallant Imperial troops their gratitude for the aid which they have extended to Greece in her defence against the unjust aggressor, are obliged to make the following statements: —
'After having conducted for more than six months a victorious struggle against strongly superior enemy forces, the Greek army has now reached a state of exhaustion and moreover finds itself completely deprived of certain resources indispensable for the pursuit of war, such as munitions, motorised vehicles and aeroplanes—resources with which it was in any case inadequately supplied from the outbreak of hostilities. This state of things makes it impossible for the Greeks to continue the struggle with any chance of success and deprives them of all hope of being able to lend some assistance to their valiant Allies. At the same time, in view of the importance of the British contingents, in view of the aviation at their disposal and in view of the extent of the front heroically defended by them, the Imperial forces have an absolute need for the assistance of the Greek army without which they could not prolong their own resistance for more than a few days.
In these conditions the continuation of the struggle, while incapable of producing any useful effect, would have no other result than to bring about the collapse of the Greek army and bloodshed useless to the Allied forces. Consequently, the Royal Government is obliged to state that further sacrifice of the British expeditionary force would be in

vain and that its withdrawal in time seems to be rendered necessary by circumstances and by interests common to the struggle.
From this document the House will see that the decision to withdraw the British forces from Greece was taken in full agreement with and in conformity with the wishes of the Greek Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Foreign Secretary convey to M. Tsouderos, the Greek Prime Minister, on behalf of the House and the nation, our deep gratitude for the magnificent courage and endurance which the Greek Army have shown and for their loyalty as Allies?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I feel, and I am sure the whole House feels, that no tribute can be too high for what they have achieved.

Mr. Granville: In view of the many false reports which have been issued from Axis propaganda sources, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the fullest world publicity is given by the Minister of Information to that statement?

Mr. Eden: That is precisely why I made the statement in this House.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement with regard to what has become of their navy?

Mr. Leach: Could a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement be sent to the Vichy Government?

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the withdrawal of our Forces from Greece?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): As I am most anxious to give the House, the nation and the Empire information at the earliest possible moment, and also in view of the extravagant claims made by the enemy, I think it right now to give the figures, so far as they are known, of the evacuation of the Empire Forces from Greece. Up to the time when evacuation was seen to be inevitable, we had landed about 60,000 men in Greece, including one New Zealand and one Australian division. Of these at least 45,000 have been evacuated, and considering that our Air Force was, through the superiority of the enemy, forced to leave the air-fields from which it could alone effectively cover the retreat of our troops, and that only a


small portion of it could cover the points of embarkation, this must be considered remarkable. The conduct of the troops and especially the rearguards in fighting their way to the sea merits the highest praise. This is the first instance where air bombing, prolonged day after day, has failed to break the discipline and order of the marching columns who, besides being thus assailed from the air, were pursued by no less than three German armoured divisions as well as by the whole strength of the German mechanised forces which could be brought to bear. In the actual fighting, principally on Mount Olympus,. around Grevena and at Thermopylae, about 3,000 casualties, killed and wounded, are reported to have been suffered by our troops. This was a very small part of the losses inflicted on the Germans, who on several occasions, sometimes for two days at a time, were brought to a standstill by forces one-fifth of their number. Nor, of course, does it take any account of German losses incurred in their assaults on the Greek and Yugoslav Armies.
It will, I dare say, be possible to give a fuller account in the Debate next week, but I think I have said enough to show the House that, painful as are our losses, we have much to be thankful for and the Empire Forces have much to be proud of.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: When the right hon. Gentleman says that 45,000 men have been evacuated, does he mean that they successfully reached their bases without mishap?

The Prime Minister: I believe that is so; indeed I think I am well within the figure, but, as I say, I have given the information in the terms in which it was given to me.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the Prime Minister feel able to make any general statement about the evacuation, or alternatively the destruction, of the heavy equipment of the Forces?

The Prime Minister: The heavy equipment could not, of course, be removed, bat the Germans are not short of heavy equipment.

Mr. Benson: May I ask whether 45,000 is the maximum number we can expect to be evacuated?

The Prime Minister: I think I said "at least 45,000." Supposing anything else were going forward, I naturally could not refer to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

National Loans Bill, without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

That they give leave to the Viscount Trenchard to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Air Services appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food."—[Note.—£10 has been voted on account.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): When my predecessor spoke last year he craved the indulgence of the Committee because he was making his maiden speech as Minister. I am afraid that I cannot ask that indulgence, but I can. at least ask it to the extent that it will not be possible for me, during the time at my disposal, to deal with the work of the Ministry in all its aspects. I will try to deal with some of the more important aspects in the course of my remarks.
The Ministry of Food has been referred to as the largest trading organisation in the world. I believe the Committee will appreciate better the significance of what that means and the magnitude of our task when I say that our trading accounts amount to about £600,000,000 in a year. The Ministry is a little more than a trading organisation. It is concerned with social and economic problems far greater than those about which any trading organisation has to think. On the one hand it is a very great monopoly, and on the other hand it has a responsibility for feeding the whole population of these Islands. I am fully aware that a Ministry dealing with such a matter as food is bound to be criticised. After all, it is dealing with a very sensitive part of the human anatomy. If you have to restrict your supplies, you may put off buying a new suit or a new dress, but to put off the taking of food is not possible for any length of time—except possibly in a circus.
One does not have to wait very long after difficulties arise before complaints reach us, for the simple reason that such difficulties will probably be felt by many households all over the country. I would therefore like to remind the Committee, when criticism is being leveled—and nobody objects to it; certainly I do not— that the Ministry of Food can distribute only such food as it can acquire. In appreciating the problems with which we are faced, it is important that we should realise how this country was fed before the war. I should say that rather more than half the food upon which we depended in this country came from overseas, and, of the other, rather less than half, a great proportion, could be produced only through imported feeding-stuffs and fertilisers.
Then you come to what are known as calory values. I warn hon. Members that this is a very dangerous subject to get into until you are used to it. On the whole I have found it better to leave vitamins and carbohydrates alone and to stick to calories, which, I am informed, are the reckoning of the amount of human energy that food produces. This is safer and simpler. On the whole, only about one-third of our requirements was produced at home, and that is a very serious position. There is no shortage of food in the world; the difficulty is to get it here. The enormous importation on which we have depended for so many years has, in its turn, depended upon shipping. Most of it would have to be carried over very long distances, for example, from Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, as well as other places, remote from our country. Other supplies were derived from places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Those of us who remember the last war, and those who have since studied its history, will realise what appalling difficulties had to be overcome in ensuring the food supply of this country. How much greater are the difficulties to-day than in the last war. Last time we had not German bases in the English Channel or on the Western Atlantic coast. Holland and Scandinavia were free and able to supply us with a large amount of food and what is much more important in relation to shipping was the very small distances comparatively that these supplies had to be transported.
I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members fully realise to what an extent we were dependent upon the countries of Scandinavia and the Netherlands for our imports of the commodities which are in such short supply to-day. Of our imports of dairy produce, 46 percent. came from those countries which are now denied to us by enemy occupation. Of dairy produce, something like 70,000 tons of butter came from Holland and about 200,000 tons of cheese. In addition 70 percent. of our eggs, of condensed milk—which is very short to-day—up to about 76 percent., potatoes and fresh vegetables 60 percent, and canned and bottled over 60 percent., pulses 40 percent, and—dare I mention them?—onions 50 percent., all came from the Netherlands.
With the shortage of shipping tonnage it is important that, so far as practicable, we should obtain food supplies with only the shortest haul. We have therefore welcomed the decision of the United States of America to extend to food supplies the scope of the Lease and Lend Act. As hon. Members know, we have sent a food mission to the United States, at the head of which is Mr. R. H. Brand. He has gone to Washington to facilitate the despatch to the United Kingdom of supplies under that Act. The shipping position has made it necessary for us to curtail imports from more distant sources of supply, including Australia and New Zealand, and a revision of our import programme has had to be made, in close consultation with representatives of those Empire sources of supply. Another difficulty which we have in this war and had not in the last is the bombing of our shipping, as well as of the houses of our people, with the consequent difficulties of distribution. Another feature which is quite new is the immense transfer of population from some parts of the country to others, with the attendant disturbance of the machinery of distribution. The diversion of shipping to the Middle East was common to both wars, and therefore is not an addition to our burdens in that sense.
As I said just now, the supplies are there, but they have to be got Here. Therefore, we decided that imports would have to be confined to those commodities which were regarded as essential to the nation's health and well-being, and we found it necessary, at a very early stage,

to cut out non-essential imports in order to make room for as much as possible of essentials such as meat, sugar, tea, oils and fats.
To ensure the equitable distribution of these staple commodities, rationing was introduced soon after the war commenced. Sugars, meats and fats are, on the whole, foodstuffs the consumption of which per head is fairly constant and uniform, and they naturally lent themselves more readily to rationing than other commodities. The Ministry took the view, at least in the earlier stages of rationing, that it was not possible to ration successfully unless the sources of supply could be brought under control. Consequently, the Ministry embarked first upon the control of imports. All the imported commodities to which I have referred, together with cereals and pulses, animal feeding-stuffs, condensed milk, milk powders, eggs, tea, dried fruits and fruit pulp are now purchased by the Ministry.
When consideration is given to the supply and distribution of food, it is necessary to differentiate between what is imported from overseas and what is supplied at home. The distinction is very important because the problems and difficulties are quite different in the two cases. In the case of imported food, the Ministry has, without question, been extremely successful in making purchases overseas at reasonable prices. There is no comparison between the price level of foodstuffs to-day and that in the last war. Let me take as one example, the price of wheat. I think the price to-day of No. 1 Northern Manitoba f.o.b. Montreal, is about 92 cents a bushel. In the last war it went up to 240. None of our purchases has approached that figure and this is true of many other commodities as well. If prices had risen or had been allowed to rise as they did at certain periods in the last war, an immensely increased burden would have been placed on the Exchequer. The reason why that has not happened up to date and why I do not think it will happen, is that from the beginning of the war all private buying of wheat and other commodities from overseas ceased. When imported foodstuffs arrive here they come through the bottleneck of the ports and of course that makes it much simpler to apply control. I think, on the whole, that the system of control is achieving the purpose for which it was


instituted, that is, of making possible equitable distribution at reasonable prices. I would remind the Committee, with regard to the question of keeping down prices, that we are spending in this country to-day at the rate of about £90,000,000 a year in subsidising food in order to keep prices at a reasonable level.
Let us take the position with regard to home supplies. I do not want to pursue the question of home production, not because I do not think it important—on the contrary, I think it of vital importance— but only because we have had within a very few days a very full Debate on food production. But may I say a few words on the distribution of home supplies? Obviously, it is not as easy to maintain control of home-produced supplies as of the imported supplies, because on the whole they do not come—except in such cases as those of wheat and meat—through the same kind of bottleneck. In the case of some commodities you have tens of thousands of suppliers scattered all over the country. These commodities, naturally, except as I say in some cases, do not come through a bottleneck which you can control. That is one of the reasons why we have found it extremely difficult up to now to devise means, for instance, of making possible a fair distribution of eggs. The production of eggs is in the hands of probably about 50,000 people. That is true of a good many other home-produced commodities and the result is that we get criticism occasionally of our distribution of these commodities.
Those are problems on which I ask the Committee to believe we are working every day. I am sure the Committee appreciates the fact that the difficulties involved are enormous. The main difficulty is that these commodities are in short supply, and I would remind hon. Members that they are in short supply because we deliberately made them so. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we had decided that certain commodities, such as meat and wheat and so on, were essential for the life and well-being of the country, and that we had decided to sacrifice some of these other commodities and to utilise the space in order to get as many essential commodities as possible into the country. Therefore, on the whole supplies are

short because we have concentrated on things which those who know informed us were essential to the life of this country. However great the difficulties thus presented, I am confident that they will be overcome. At any rate, we are working at them all the time.
Not only does the Ministry control the purchase and imports of these commodities, but it exercises control over the various stages of distribution from the place of import to the consumer. In many instances we exercise supervision over the processing of foodstuffs through controlling the allocation of raw materials for manufacturing purposes, and the process of food manufacture itself. The Ministry is at present engaged in extending control over the prices and distribution of a wide range of manufactured foodstuffs in agreement with and through the instrumentality of the manufacturers. As far as retail distribution is concerned, the Ministry controls it in the case of a great many commodities by means of retail margins, mainly by maximum price orders, and by rationing and such control as is so far exercised over the allocation to retailers of non-rationed foodstuffs. This latter method is in process of development by the Ministry at the moment. Recently an experiment has been made, the institution of the minimum share scheme for a group of commodities—that is, the preserves group, syrup, treacle and so forth. This scheme is not the ordinary form of rationing, but the retailer is under an obligation to distribute the minimum share to customers who have registered with him, and arrangements have been made for him to obtain the necessary supplies. In extending this scheme to other groups of commodities, it is extremely important that those foods which are sold in substantially the same kind of retail shop, and which serve an identical purpose, should be grouped together.
I want to mention here one other extension of the rationing system which has interested hon. Members of this House a great deal, and that is the question of the cheese ration. There is no doubt at ail that certain sections of the community depend far more than others upon cheese, and while we appreciate the claims of others to this ration, we had of necessity to have regard to the supply position. After consultation with the workers'


organisations, it was decided that the supplementary issue should be confined to underground mine workers and to agricultural labourers. I want to make this perfectly clear—it has been said before, but it does not seem to me to be altogether appreciated—that this ration of cheese was not given to these two particular classes of workers because we thought they needed more by reason of the nature of their work but simply because they are the two principal classes—there are others, it is true—which on the whole have to consume their food far away from their home. The catering establishments which have been set up all over the country would have been of no avail to them at all.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and my Noble Friend are taking every possible step they can to ensure the development, all over the country, of these canteens for workers in which cheap and nourishing food will be supplied. We appreciate, of course, that a decision of this sort, which confines a ration to particular sections, is open to some criticism, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and when you draw a line, whether it is of age or anything else, you are bound to get inequality on either side of it. You cannot even draw a frontier which will put all the races on one or other side of the line—I think we have discovered that by now. We have done our best to make the best division possible, but it is not really possible without some hardship on one side or the other. But the scheme is constantly under review, and, of course, we shall be quite prepared to amend it as a result of experience.
I now turn to a question which has created a great deal of excitement, and that is the question of what is known as luxury feeding in restaurants. There has been a certain amount of criticism of the policy which allows meals to be taken in these establishments without the surrender of a coupon. I say quite frankly to the Committee that this subject has been given a prominence out of all relation to its importance, because of, among other things, rather sensational publicity in one or two organs of the Press. As a matter of fact it is out of all proportion to the problem with which we are dealing. Some people, remembering the last war, think it would be better if we made

people surrender a coupon whenever they took a meat meal in a catering establishment, the idea being that because they do not surrender a coupon they are allowed to have unlimited supplies—

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Generous portions.

Major Lloyd George: Or generous portions—and then go home and have full rations, which others cannot do. It would be possible to go back to the system of the last war, but conditions are absolutely different to-day from what they then were. More and more are the people of this country dependent upon having a meal out at some time during the day. I am told that 25 years ago it was quite a common practice, even in offices, for workers to bring their lunch with them, but go out to-day in Whitehall when the offices are emptying at lunch time, and you will find hundreds of people going to the cheaper restaurants in the district. That did not obtain to anything like the same extent 25 years ago. There is also another thing which did not obtain to anything like the same extent in the last war. Millions of workers all over the country are now being fed in canteens, and let me make it clear that a canteen is a restaurant for this purpose. Works canteens are guaranteed a certain amount of meat per head of the people using them, and had it not been for a drastic curtailment of other types of restaurant, there was a period when we could not have fulfilled that particular guarantee. To ask workers in canteens, to ask the lorry driver who stops at a pull-up, to surrender a coupon every time they have a meal, would place an enormous burden upon working men's wives, among other people, who would never know what they would have left at the end of the week. Let me also make another point. If all the meat meals in every restaurant, canteen, and every kind of communal feeding centre in the country were stopped, it would only, be possible to raise the meat ration from 1s. to 1s. 1d. That puts the matter in its true proportions, and I hope that people will leave it at that for the time being.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: May I ask for an explanation? Is the implication of that statement that only 1/13th of the meat


consumed is consumed in public eating houses, and that the whole of the rest is consumed at home?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, that is the position. Canteens, eating houses and communal feeding centres which are entitled to meat rations take about 8 percent. Let us get a proper sense of proportion about this matter, because people have gained the impression that if only this luxury feeding were stopped, it would be possible to increase the meat raton by a considerable amount, whereas the' true position is that if the whole lot were taken away, it would only add 1d. to the present ration. What we have in fact done, of course, has been to reduce the meat allocation to restaurants very drastically indeed, and, what is more, we have made an order which makes it an offence to consume more than one main dish at any single meal. Of course, it is far easier for us when we know the aggregate amount of meat required, because we know exactly what our commitments are.
Another complaint which I have received recently is in relation to the shortage of unrationed commodities. On examination of many of the complaints that have come forward, we have found that while there is a real shortage, the particular town from which the complaint came has received its fair share of the commodity which is admittedly in very short supply. I have constantly heard people say that they cannot get anything at all in one particular place while someone who lives somewhere else ran get everything required, but I have never been fortunate enough to go into that particular shop myself. I am not saying that there are not some places if the kind, but on examination a great number of the complaints are based, it is found, on the fact that people have not quite appreciated that there is a general shortage of these unrationed commodities. Unquestionably supplies have become very much tighter recently. Let us be quite clear about that, because we have to face up to these things. Supplies are very much tighter than they were in the earlier stages. The amount of rations has been reduced, many non-rationed foodstuffs are in short supply, and I would like to point out again; that the reason they are in short supply is be-

cause we want all the space we can afford in order to get the things we consider more essential for the welfare of the nation. Where the unrationed commodity is one over which the Ministry has some measure of control, complaints of maldistribution are nothing like so frequent. As a general principle, distribution in these cases is on the basis of the pre-war supplies of the particular firm or customer.
But in cases where the Ministry have no control over distribution, the manufacturers and wholesalers have been furnished with figures of the populations of the various types in the country. These are very accurate figures, because they are taken from the figures of ration books issued, which is obviously as accurate an indication as we can have. But, as I said at Question Time to-day, we cannot make absolutely certain that as the population of London, say, is reduced and that of other places is increased, a reduction in supplies will be made for London, in order to meet the increased demand in other places. I think that people who live in areas liable to bombardment are entitled to a little more than their proportion of the supplies, and that it will be agreed that people living in areas of comparative peace are having the best of the bargain; I am certain that they would not complain. We cannot make distribution absolutely pro rata. It is a matter of great pride to us all to see how our people are facing these great difficulties. We get very few complaints really. A lot of the complaints are about small things, which I suppose often cause more trouble than the bigger things. It is amazing how our people are standing up to their difficulties, and it is very comforting to think that that is the case. This is largely, I think, because the policy of the Ministry has been to take the people into our confidence at all times, provided that doing so does not conflict with the national interest.
There is one other aspect of the Ministry's work with which I want to deal. It is something quite different from the acquisition and distribution of food. We have developed a new function recently, in the provision of meals. Problems of food supply and distribution are immensely aggravated by air attack. The incidence of this attack frequently means diversion of shipping and upsets loading


facilities and transport. The food distribution system may be damaged or destroyed. Concentrated attack on a town, therefore, may well mean that large numbers of people have to be fed by emergency methods. May I say, in no boastful spirit at all, that much of the arrangements for this were made before the first attacks on this country? To meet this situation, emergency feeding centres have been set up for the provision of hot meals for men, women and children whose homes have been so damaged that either they have to leave them or they cannot cook in them These centres are established in schools, halls, and other suitable buildings. We are providing equipment and food supplies to centres which have been chosen and established by local authorities. Up to the present, applications have been received by the Ministry from 114 towns, with a total population of over 16,000,000. We have ordered to be sent to them 3,500 boilers and 500,000 mugs, plates and spoons. There has been a quickening-up in the response in the last few weeks. Not long ago the number of towns was only 70, and it is now 114. That is because local authorities are learning that it is better to be prepared than to try to divise something after the damage is done.
Local authorities have been urged to co-operate with catering establishments and so on. In addition, powers have been conferred upon local authorities to direct the service by caterers of meals, as required. Over and above what is required day by day, towns of a population of 50,000 and upwards have been invited to arrange for the feeding of no less than 10 percent. of their population in the event of emergency. A very considerable organisation has been set up to enable towns which have been bombed to take immediate action. While the ordinary work of the Ministry is done by the food control committees, this emergency work is done by the local authorities—and very well they are doing it In places that I have had to visit—and also by voluntary organisations, such as the Women's Voluntary Service, the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army and so on. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that our organisation for meeting this emergency has stood the test very well. Even in the towns where the attacks have been heaviest, there has been

no shortage of foodstuffs. I would like to pay this tribute to the food trade organisation and to individual traders and to the local authorities which have cooperated magnificently.
Without these arrangements, in the very badly bombed towns the morale of the people would not, in my judgment, have been as good as it has been. May I give one or two examples? In Coventry, on the second day after the attack, there was more milk than usual. In Plymouth, after last week's heavy raids, there was no complaint of shortage of supplies, but I understand that retailers were having difficulty in obtaining scales and bacon cutters. I do not regard that as a very serious thing in the middle of an attack. This morning I had a telegram from the Lord Mayor of Plymouth, which I would like to read to the Committee:
I want to thank you for the help that your Ministry has given. It has been magnificent and I am most grateful to you.
I know that no thanks are looked for. If the organisation is set up and functioning, that is really the best thanks that can be given to anybody. We have had similar expressions of appreciation from other parts of the country. In Glasgow, appreciation took solid form in a contribution towards providing further mobile canteens. Those who know the Clydebank district well know the work that was done there recently.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Are the canteens voluntary canteens?

Major Lloyd George: Yes; the mobile canteens for the supply of foodstuffs and hot drinks. Of course, it is not possible always to get the emergency arrangements working immediately after bombardment. Dispersal is important. But you may have occasions when cooking facilities are out of commission. For that purpose, we have organised the special convoys, known as Queen Messengers, capable of going into every part of the country. We are hoping to have 18 of them before long. They will go everywhere, and do that which is very important—provide hot meals immediately after the attack. That is far more important than being efficient two days later.

Mr. Lindsay: Who does the Ministry regard as the responsible officer under the various local authorities organising this


Work? Does this vary with each authority? Is it sometimes under the director of education, or is there some specific officer responsible for the organisation?

Major Lloyd George: We deal with the local authority; as far as I know, we do not deal with any special section of it.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it done through the town clerk?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. There is one other point with which I want to deal, namely, that of communal restaurants. We are anxious that these restaurants should be developed all over the country, and I am glad to say that the response is becoming better and better. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Capt. Strickland) will be very interested in this. They have been brought into operation, not for the emergency alone, but to enable people to get a decent meal at a reasonable price. So far 299 such restaurants in 156 towns have been approved by the Ministry, in addition to 170 London meals centres operated by the London County Council, and 280 evacuee centres taken over by the Ministry of Health and now being operated as British restaurants open to the general public. This makes a total of 749, and the average number of meals served per day is over 82,000. I can speak from personal experience of the wonderful service that these restaurants render. I have been to several of them, particularly in London, and I really understand why they are appreciated. Many of these men who are taking their meals there would have no prospect of any hot meal at all unless they cooked it themselves at the end of a very heavy-day's work, because their families have been evacuated elsewhere. Everywhere I have heard admiration of the work that these restaurants are doing.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): It is very important that Members of the Committee should be aware of the places where these restaurants have been set up, or of the places where they have not been set up, in order that they may use their influence to see that additional restaurants are set up as soon as possible. Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider putting in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of areas where these restaurants have been set up, or a

list of areas where they have not been set up, so that Members can be informed?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly consider that request, I think some time ago I had a list circulated but it will be out of date now.

Mr. Smith: It was not a full list.

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to consider that. We are doing everything we can to educate people in the various branches of cooking by practical demonstration, wireless, Press advertising and so forth, so as to enable people to make the best of a substitute for an article they cannot get and to do something with an article which perhaps they have never used before. We have found this very successful, and I hope more will be done all over the country.
There is another subject with which I would like to deal before I sit down, and it is something of which hon. Members may have heard, namely, the new milk scheme. I gather that they will probably have heard more of that than of anything else in the last week or so. May I explain why it has occurred. During the last year the consumption of liquid milk has risen by 14 percent. That demand is one that we can meet during the summer, but we cannot meet it during the winter. We also want to make provision for the manufacture of cheese and condensed milk which normally we imported, and, therefore, we thought that this was the time, when milk was just coming into fuller production, to build up our reserves, and do it by cutting down the consumption to the level at which it was last year. There has been a lot of trouble, I gather, more trouble than the scheme deserved. We are distributing the same amount of milk as 12 months ago but certain difficulties have come before us and we are always prepared to consider them. Rationing means a tremendous amount of work and could not be done in time. Differential rationing is a different thing. If we had not differential rationing it would enable everybody to have two-fifths of a pint of milk a day. Some of us have not possibly acquired the milk drinking habit. In fact some do not want the milk, but it is a funny thing that, if you give a ration, you can depend upon it that people will take it. Therefore, there is a good deal to be said against rationing, apart from the time it would


take. So we called together the Central Milk Distribution Committee and asked them to help us to devise a workable scheme and ensure a saving of 15 percent. consumption of milk.
The scheme arrived at is flexible, and after seeing its working for the first fortnight we have laid down several conditions, which I will let the Committee know. First, we expect the distributors to continue distributing the milk for seven days a week where that has been the practice. In some cases it is not the practice, in rural districts, for instance. I do not think that there would have been any trouble arising over the cut if some genius had not discovered that 15 percent, is very near to one-seventh and that there are seven days in a week. If we had stuck to the 15 percent., it would have been much simpler. Secondly, the Minister has decided from now on that there shall be no cuts in the milk supplies to people who take one pint or less per day. Customers needs are bound to vary by reason of illness or movement of population, and we have instructed dairymen to do their best to respect these needs and apply to the regional officers for a revised allocation of their supplies. This scheme does not affect the national priority classes, such as schools, hospitals, invalids and people suffering from certain illnesses, and, in addition, we have laid it down in allocating remaining supplies that they should give domestic needs preference over the demands of catering establishments.
I have practically come to the end of what I have to say, and I apologise for detaining the Committee for so long. I think I can say, without being accused of any boastful spirit, that the organisation of the Ministry of Food has accomplished much. I certainly do not claim perfection for it. Frankly, mistakes have been made. I am glad that they have been made, because if you make mistakes, it is because you are doing something, and if you are experimenting, as we are, on many things, you are bound to make mistakes. My noble Friend and I are prepared to acknowledge them and to try and put things right. It is said sometimes that difficulties only exist to be got over. I do not disagree with that view. It is also said that to know, all is to forgive all. I am not really asking for forgiveness, but I hope that the Committee and everybody

else know more perhaps now, because I sometimes feel that with a little more understanding of the problems with which we are faced some of the criticisms we get would not come to us. In any case, I hope that this discussion will help in some way to clear it up. In common with all our fellow countrymen and women, our thoughts at the Ministry of Food frequently go to the Middle East, where such tremendous events are happening, but I am sure that the Committee will not misunderstand me when I say that inevitably our thoughts come back to the West, where, as the Prime Minister reminded us in his broadcast last Sunday, the attack upon our lifeline, as he called it, ceased neither by day nor by night. It is an attack that is being countered by all the courage and resource of the men of the Royal Navy, Air Force and Mercantile Marine. But this attack is not confined to the seas; it extends to our estuaries, our harbours, our wharves, our storehouses, along our transport system and, indeed, into the very homes of our people, where it is being countered with exactly the same courage as is being displayed by the men of our Services out on the high seas. It is the determination of the Ministry of Food, which I have the privilege of representing in this House, to extend to those people all the support that it is humanly possible for us to, give them.

Mr. Barnes: I should like to congratulate the parliamentary Secretary on the very practical and businesslike way in which he has presented the Estimates for his Department. I rather feel that Members in all parts of the Committee will appreciate his unconscious humour just as much as we have often appreciated the brilliant wit of his father, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The general atmosphere in which he has submitted his case will, I think, enable the Committee to engage in a rather useful discussion on a very important part of the work of the State. Quite frankly, I intend to adopt a critical attitude to the Ministry of Food to-day, because over a period of 18 months I have generally found myself in disagreement with their policy. I do not adopt that attitude in an arbitrary manner, but more in a suggestive manner, because from my own


experience of food distribution I should be the first to admit that under the prevailing circumstances in this country it is impossible to devise a system of food distribution that will give general satisfaction.
My first note of criticism is that although this problem must be examined always on an individual commodity basis, there should be a general principle governing the approach of the Ministry to all these commodities and a general principle which should govern the approach of the Department to goods in short supply. When we face the position of any commodity being in short supply, either through actual damage, breakdown or maldistribution, or through the movement of population which the Parliamentary Secretary himself has admitted —and which has caused substantial difficulty to his Department—the Ministry should seriously consider and carry out to the best of their ability a system of registration and rationing. Judging by the work of the Ministry during the past 18 months, they have not followed that policy. So far as my personal knowledge goes, they never introduce the rationing of any commodity until they have been practically compelled to do so by public opinion of the trade and sometimes of the country. After 18 months this is a rather serious indictment which one can level at the Ministry, and while we appreciate the standard of accomplishment of this Department as a Department of State—and no one wishes to minimise what has been done—I do not think they should escape criticism at the moment because of the lack of following a policy of that kind.
In support of my position, let me recall to the Committee the history of the policy as approved. In the autumn of 1939 we were confronting widespread public irritation amounting to anger over the maldistribution of butter, sugar, tea, bacon and meat at that period. The Committee will recall how the Ministry of Food then resisted the pressure and evidence of public opinion until, in the early days of 1940, they did introduce the registration and rationing of butter, bacon, sugar and tea and, later, meat. To-day the Parliamentary Secretary himself admits that while these goods are relatively the most important of our foodstuffs, public dis-

satisfaction is almost nil compared with the public dissatisfaction over the question of non-rationed goods in short supply. That is the first point I make on behalf of the value of registration and rationing. As I indicated earlier, I am not unaware that different problems arise with different commodities, and at the moment I am contenting myself with making the broad case that registration and rationing meet a sense of inequity and of difficulties, both in the trade and among the public. When the Committee reviews the state of mind of the public and the trade as regards the wide range of foodstuffs in short supply, to which the principle of rationing has not been applied, it will immediately be aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction. Perhaps the major dissatisfaction arises because of the substantial movement of the population from evacuation areas to reception areas.
Let us examine how the Ministry have so far endeavoured to deal with this problem. In my view this method is not practical, and it has not been fair. They have rather shifted their responsibility as a Ministry, first of all, on to the wholesalers, requesting them to adopt a rough and ready method of so distributing their supplies to the retailers that they will be able to carry out adjustments to meet the problem of the transfer of the population. Now I claim that that, in practice, is not working satisfactorily. In the first place, there was no compulsion upon the wholesaler to continue to distribute to his retailers their proportionate supplies. Secondly, many wholesalers do not cover the whole of the country. The majority of them probably cover a limited area of the country. Hon. Members will appreciate at once that if a wholesaler is in the position of supplying retailers in an area from which there has been considerable evacuation, he will not withdraw his supplies and pass them on to wholesalers in a reception area. The irregular responsibilities and areas of the wholesalers, while they might be all right in peace conditions, make it utterly impossible to meet a wartime problem of this character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the statistics which the Ministry of Food are now supplying to wholesalers. That is a recent development, and although the statistics in the aggregate may be accurate, Sometimes they lump together the populations of towns and rural districts, and in some of the


towns there may be evacuation areas and in some of the surrounding rural districts there may be reception areas. Therefore, although the Ministry have gone some way towards giving the information which wholesalers require, hon. Members must not run away with the idea that they have found a solution to this problem.
The voluntary scheme of rationing through wholesalers and retailers, on which the Ministry have so far relied, is not working equitably and satisfactorily. The point I want to make is that where there is a foundation position of that sort, it starts a flow of irregularities which eventually develop into abuses. It is because of this fundamental weakness in the administration of the Ministry of Food that the development of what is known as the "black market" in foodstuffs has steadily crept into the food affairs of the country, and already represents considerable abuses which, if they are not dealt with by a different policy, may become much more substantial than they are at present. Let me indicate what happens under the voluntary system. Wholesalers are able to favour retailers. It must be remembered that there is intertwined in the system all the private and personal interests of trade which prevailed before the war and which the traders think are likely to occur again after the war. All kinds of abuses and favouritism can creep in. From experience with regard to canned foods and other commodities, we see how the food racketeer has been able: to fasten himself on to the system. It is no use the Noble Lord the Minister of Food getting publicity in the Press and crowing about certain speculators having burnt their fingers, when the trade generally knows that those speculators have already got their loot and cleared out, and have left the abuses as a residue in the administration. We cannot understand Ministers of the Crown claiming credit for belated actions when their responsibility is to anticipate abuses and prevent them from occurring or developing.
The system of refusing to deal adequately with short supplies has caused the development of a very undesirable practice with regard to existing registrations for butter, sugar, meat, tea, and so on. I refer to split registrations. When the retailer is faced with a shortage of commodities, in his effort to minimise his

difficulties he voluntarily imposes a system of rationing and endeavours to keep his limited supplies for his own registered customers. This has led families to split their registrations over a number of retailers, and so have a call on the supplies of two, three or four retailers for commodities in short supply. I cannot understand how these practices help to solve the problem of a shortage of supplies. The system adds to the difficulties of the Ministry, and it adds to the difficulties of the retail trade. When I think of the strain on man-power, the expenses of business, and the irritation and trouble to customers which the system causes, I cannot see any advantage in the Ministry allowing this state of affairs steadily to develop. I do not take an unreasonable view of this. I admit that when one is experimenting with a difficult problem of this character, a certain period must elapse before the difficulties show themselves, but there has been a period of 18 months now, and experienced people in the trade know the position and claim that the Ministry ought to accept generally a policy of registration and rationing, and experimenting with group rationing as a modification of the main principle. The consumers, the retailers, the wholesalers and the manufacturers have not any great conflicting interest in the matter. I think the Minister will admit that there is a great pool of good will and co-operation, and that no one has any desire to pull the Ministry to bits. Everybody recognises that its functions cannot be carried out by the trade. I hope that following this Debate hon. Members will endeavour to reach as much agreement as possible on the policy to be pursued, and that the Minister will follow it in future.
Further to emphasise my point, I want to recall to the Committee the experience we have had with specific commodities. From time to time, nothing less than scandals have developed, and continue to exist, concerning fish supplies and commodities. Here we have a very difficult industry to deal with, but the point is that we are no nearer a solution than we were at the beginning of the trouble. At the present time, the prices of fish are exorbitant, indefensible and a scandal, and hon. Members ought to make it quite plain that in their view this cannot be permitted. Over the whole range of white fish, some steps ought to be taken to


bring about reasonable prices. Anybody who has some idea of the dangers which fishermen have to face in catching the fish will not begrudge a very substantial financial reward to those who brave these dangers, but it will take a lot to convince the public that the excessive prices they pay all go into the pockets of the men who catch the fish.
Canned fruits represented a first-class scandal in the matter of speculation and manipulation at a certain period in the administration of the Ministry. One discovered that firms and dealers who, in the ordinary way, never handled these goods were suddenly flushed with supplies, and that ordinary provisions dealers, to whom the public usually looked for supplies of this sort, often had none. We had the same experience with regard to onions; at a certain point the Minister controlled prices, and onions disappeared from the market. There was also the muddle over turkeys and chickens last Christmas. With regard to the rationing of preserves and cheese, again the Ministry resisted the pressure both of the public and the trade as long as they could. It is true that the system is not by any means working satisfactorily. The private distribution of these supplies was very unfair, and those of us connected with the industry told the Minister that he would find himself in this position. Nevetheless one can begin to see signs of equity in that particular section of the trade.
I now wish to refer to a question of policy which does not come directly within the administration of the Ministry of Food, but which I think will have some impact on the Department in the near future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when introducing his Budget, referred to the Government's scheme for subsidising basic foodstuffs. The Minister admitted that it was now costing £90,000,000 a year. It has been a very successful scheme, and is a remarkable example which the Government ought to have followed sternly at the outbreak of the war; it would then have been possible to have maintained a proper control over the whole range of basic priced goods. The Chancellor indicated that the Government were now proposing to extend that policy. Can the Minister indicate in his reply whether it will cover food supplies, and, if so, whether it will be applied to the

present level of prices, or whether efforts will be made to cut the present level, which in my view is undoubtedly too high? These prices are increasing daily. I do not propose to delay the time of the Committee in reading a series of daily advice notes on food prices which I have brought with me for the purposes of this Debate, but they indicate advances of an extra penny here, a halfpenny there, or twopence somewhere else on commodities. There is a continuous and steady rise in prices on a vast range of food products which go into the ordinary grocer's store. Already they have reached a high level, and unless the Government take action prices will get out of control in the near future. I should like to know whether the Government are going to stabilise prices at the present level, or whether an effort will be made to reduce them.
The Minister has indicated to-day that the problem which faced the Ministry in regard to milk was to cut consumption to what it was some time ago. There has been an increase of 14 percent. in the consumption of milk, and therefore the Government propose a cut of one-seventh to bring us back to normal. No one can quarrel with that policy or purpose. The Minister went on to mention that those who came under the cheap milk scheme were excluded, and that other classes were being given special consideration. In view of all these difficulties, I want to put a straight question to the Parliamentary Secretary. He has detailed to the Committee the troubles and difficulties of the Ministry of Food. Is it fair that he should shift these difficulties on to the wholesalers or Milk Marketing Board, and that they in their turn should shift them on to the dairies, and the dairies should eventually shift them on to the roundsman, and that the roundsman therefore should have the problem of dealing with the rationing of customers? Is that a position which this Committee can defend? The roundsman's ultimate position depends on his maintaining the output of his round. He has to meet all the difficulties of his customers. Therefore does it not stand to reason that the roundsman should not be the person to meet all this accumulated resentment which passes through all these stages of responsibility? It has nothing to do with him, and one can easily understand his disinclination to offend his good customers. I think the Ministry should


have faced up to this problem. If the Ministry wanted to cut the supply, it is no use saying that they had no time. It has been known for a long time in the trade that we might meet a period when the consumption of milk might have to be cut. The Ministry should have known that, and they should have anticipated it. Last autumn it was recognised that there might be a period when we should have to ration or cut down the consumption of milk, and the Ministry should have faced up to the problem then, instead of waiting until they were forced to come to this decision.
Then there is the problem of eggs. I understood the Minister to refer to 50,000 poultry keepers in this country. I think that was a slip of the tongue, and I should like to clear up that point. I was under the impression that under the Poultry Feeding-Stuffs Rationing Scheme there were something like 750,000 poultry keepers who have been registered.

Major Lloyd George: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I meant, not 50,000, but 500,000.

Mr. Barnes: I raised the point to get the figures corrected. The experience of the trade, ever since the Minister introduced controlled prices, is that the quantity of eggs passing through the normal trade has steadily declined. No one is arguing about the shortage, because that is a fact. But there is a diversion of supplies, and that arises again from a very simple human motive, that is, that the producer can obtain the retail price if he sells direct to a customer. Therefore, as a result of the Ministry's policy, there is an inducement not to send eggs through the normal channels of trade distribution. My complaint, which runs all through this Debate, is that the Ministry's policy initiates in the first instance the commencement of many of these abuses—abuses which are developing. If there is a system of rationing of poultry foods, there should be some quid pro quo arrangement whereby poultry keepers divert—I am not taking an arbitrary view, and saying it should be a major part or half—a proportion of the eggs into the general market for the general public.
Then there is the question of tea. Can-

not tea be placed on a full registration and rationing basis, like butter, sugar and bacon—that is, tied to a particular retailer or dealer? I wish again to refer to my original statement. If goods are in short supply, whether it be as a result of an actual shortage, maldistribution, or the movement of population, I urge the Minister to accept the policy of applying registration and rationing in every case where it is humanly possible. Experience shows that when this is done you at once locate the demand. The problem of whether or not people consume it is rapidly dispensed with, because, if they do not take up their ration, it is released and it may be increased. It solves the distribution problems, because those who have to handle supplies—wholesalers, manufacturers and so on—are immediately able, when the retailer registers with them, to know exactly where the demand is and to arrange their distribution accordingly. I agree that it does not increase supplies, but in my view it definitely makes supplies go further. The legitimate trader and the public generally want this policy, and I ask the Minister to depart from the haphazard method which has characterised the administration in the past and state that they are prepared to accept it as a general principle to guide the administration of the Department, and welcome in every way possible the co-operation of the public and the trade for the purpose of putting it into operation. If he does that, while it will not solve the Department's difficulties, it will find a great measure of good will in the public mind.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member speaks with considerable knowledge and experience on matters of food distribution, and he has given a very good send-off to the discussion arising out of the Minister's statement. He has been practical, and I hope his really pertinent questions will receive the consideration of the Ministry. I find myself in general agreement with much that he has said, particularly with regard to an extension of rationing, or at least of registering. The Prime Minister the other day, dealing with recent events in the Mediterranean, told us that we should view them with a sense of proportion. I think he was right, and it is only fair to the Ministry of Food that we should approach its work in the same attitude. If we do that, I think the Ministry comes


out of its very responsible and difficult job with very great credit. It has done the big things well. It has, in the first instance, to a very considerable extent delivered the goods. Although we have had here and there criticisms of shortage of this or that, it has provided the great mass of the people with the essential articles of food, and I think that after 18 months of war the people are still very well fed and no one is hungrier. Secondly, it has succeeded in doing this with a reasonable price level. Those are big achievements, and I think, when we are criticising the Ministry, we ought to give them full credit for what they have done. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech will have increased the confidence which the House, in my opinion rightly, has in him and in his noble Friend. We have listened with pleasure to the way in which he has answered questions from time to time, and his speech to-day has been a model of what the House wanted in discussing a matter of this kind.
The Food Ministry is bound to be important, because, as Napoleon said, "An army marches on its stomach." In this war the people are in the front line, therefore the supply of adequate food is a matter of very vital importance as far as the war effort is concerned. It also plays a very important part in the preservation of public morale. Some of these problems which bear on unfair distribution may be small in themselves as far as the amount of food is concerned—the amount of food consumed in restaurants and other places, for instance—but their effect on the public morale is very important. The people expect to be on somewhat short supply during war, but what they say of the Food Minister is that, if he must be a beast, let him be a just beast—that is to say, let all be treated fairly. As far as rationed foods are concerned, everyone is treated alike, rich and poor, the leisured and those who are employed, but it is not true of non-rationed food, and therefore I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he would not give further consideration to the plea that has been addressed to him to extend rationing and to have registration for articles which he cannot ration. In my opinion his difficulties will be lessened if he will adopt a policy of this kind.
We hear a great deal from time to time about the shortage of certain things, such

as tobacco, but the Minister says there are adequate supplies. That may be true, but under present conditions a man, or for that matter a woman, does not know whether, if he can get tobacco this week, he will be able to get it next week, and there is a tendency to go from shop to shop and take more than is normal as a kind of insurance. If he were registered at one place and could only buy there, I think that would cease, and any sense of unfairness that exists at present would be removed. It is possible at present for a leisured person to scrounge for food and to have an advantage over those who are employed during the day. He has time to go from shop to shop and succeeds in picking up a bit here and a bit there. That creates a sense of injustice, and if anything will break down the work of the Ministry, it will be that sense of unfair treatment as between one section of the community and another. Registering or rationing will remove some of these difficulties.
In particular, in allocating supplies we must have regard to the children and see that they are the last to go short. In the consignment of oranges which recently came here I think the Ministry missed an opportunity. They should have been reserved for the children. We are told that some more are to come. Will the Minister take the matter into consideration and see that that is done? Another opportunity for feeding children is through the school canteens. I have discovered in my own area that it is increasingly difficult for those who have to provide the food for school canteens to get it. We are proposng an extension of school canteens because we believe that it is in the interests of the children and of the food position that we should encourage them. We cannot, however, get the food we require for the children who come at present, and such food as we can get can be obtained only after considerable effort. I have suggested before, and I repeat, that it ought to be possible for those responsible for administering school canteens, where they cannot get supplies from the local shops, to get the help of the food office in buying direct. That is the method by which food is obtained for the British Restaurants, and if it is considered the best for them, I do not see why it should not also apply to school canteens. I know from corre-


spondence that I have had that the difficulty of obtaining food for school canteens is not confined to any one district but extends throughout the country.
The Minister gave some figures about the number of British Restaurants that have been opened, and he praised local authorities for what they have done. Can he tell me why, if his Ministry are so keen on having these British Restaurants opened, they are so long in giving permission to local authorities to go on with the work? I will give an instance from the borough which I have the honour to represent. We applied some time ago for permission to open seven British Restaurants in various parts of the town. We have obtained permission so far to open only two, and I cannot understand why there should be this delay in regard to the other five. Some of them are in parts of the town where they are badly needed. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that these matters are speeded up, because it is very disappointing to local authorities, when they are told to get on with the job, to be held up after they have sent up their plans and arrangements. When they get the permission there is sometimes a difficulty in obtaining equipment. One understands that there are competing demands for the material from which the equipment is made, but may I make a suggestion? In certain towns that have suffered from enemy action some of the restaurants and catering establishments have been put out of action. In those instances the local food officer should have the power to buy up the equipment. I have heard that in many instances they have been put up for auction and gone to private purchasers. It would help considerably if, when any catering establishment is for one reason or another compelled to go out of business, the Ministry got hold of the equipment and passed it on to local authorities which require it for their restaurants.
Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me what one has to do to obtain the standard bread which has been sponsored by his Ministry? In my constituency, as far as I can find out, it is unobtainable. If the Minister thinks that it is desirable that it should be widely used, I would ask him to consider whether it should not be exclusively used and whether steps ought not to be taken to see that this is the only bread obtainable. Even if he does not want to go as far as that,

he ought to take steps to see that it is easily obtainable by those who require it. If I have ventured to make one or two criticisms it is not because I do not realise that in the main the Ministry has done extremely well and, in particular, that the Committee and the country can have every confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I am afraid that the criticisms I may have to offer may be set aside by suggestions that the administration was set up by those about whom the least said the easiest mended, and that it would be unfair to blame the Noble Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary for the mistakes in the initial stages of rationing. May I suggest, if it is not too late, that any new rationing should take place apart altogether from the National Registration scheme? Endless confusion has been caused among people living away from home in the initial stages when the National Register was made up. There were 100,000 people away from the city in which I live, and when rationing came into operation they were back in Glasgow, but there were no records and it caused considerable confusion. I understand that there is a possibility of complete re-rationing, and I suggest that it should take place on the basis of the persons who normally live at particular places instead of having anything to do with the National Registration scheme.
I have here one or two notes of actual experience of administration, and I am afraid that the rosy picture which the Parliamentary Secretary has painted was painted more according to what the Minister desired to do than to what has actually taken place. The Noble Lord the Minister for Aircraft Production talks about boys in the back room. I am satisfied that there is a number of boys in the back room at Colwyn Bay who do things that cause endless confusion, who set impossible time-tables for local food executive committees, and who ask for complete registration for certain items to take place within ten days without regard to the difficulties. Those instructions come pouring in week after week and month after month. I am almost convinced that as long as there is a sufficient number of numerals to go round those circulars will continue to emerge from Colwyn Bay, even supposing in their own


language a committee is instructed to deal with the circular as what they term ''confidential wastage." Valuable paper has been wasted and instructions have been given where there is no hope of carrying them into effect, and the back room boys at Colwyn Bay say to the food executive officer, "Will you kindly destroy the evidence and treat this as confidential wastage?" I have had considerable experience of local government work and I have nosed about in administration from one end of the country to the other, but I have to confess that the term "confidential wastage" is a new one on me. I can quote, if need be, from a document which was received from Colwyn Bay telling the Glasgow food executive officer to treat this matter as confidential wastage.
There was the change of retailers scheme, with Form R.G.23A. Of all the glorious imbecilities that ever emerged from Colwyn Bay this new scheme of changing retailers was the prize-taker. My executive officer refers to it as "the famous Form R.G.23A." It disorganised the work of changing retailers. The butcher who was displaced was getting allocations of meat for persons who were no longer on his register, and the new butcher selected by them was asked to supply meat for which he had received no authorisation. There was a glorious muddle. A form from Colwyn Bay, which was printed on both sides, whereas a single leaflet would have served as a folder and could have been posted as such, made no reference to whether the registered customer was an adult or a juvenile. As a consequence, where allocations were dropped it was on the basis of adults all the time. Communications were sent to Colwyn Bay for guidance in clearing up the matter, and then another new method was adopted of getting out of the difficulty. I believe it is a method well known to public men —that if you keep a letter long enough it usually answers itself. Colwyn Bay maintained a discreet silence. The thing was allowed to go on and, so far as I am aware, it is still going on. Not only were the wholesalers and the retailers disgruntled, but the consumers were placed in an absolutely impossible position.
Owing to the amount of meat available during the latter part of 1940, many

butchers supplied anyone with meat. This was particularly the case with Group I manufacturers, who, as far as can be ascertained, did not use all their meat for manufacturing purposes. I have been asking the Minister questions about Group I manufacturers, and to-day he indicated that he does not propose to make Group I manufacturers responsible to food executive officers. With all due respect to the Minister, there is no method of checking whether the supplies issued to Group I manufacturers have been used for manufacturing purposes or not. The manufacturers can do what they like, and it is nobody's responsibility to check them, because the finished product is not subject to rationing and not subject to check by any person. If he likes, a Group I manufacturer can sell all the meat allocated to him for manufacturing purposes across the counter as fresh meat, and he does it, in that way supplementing the rations of his registered customers, more especially when it is getting near the time when customers can change their butchers.
I have had Questions on the Order Paper dealing with Messrs. Lewis's Stores. I do not want to be misunderstood. I cannot explain to all the public outside that it is only a coincidence that the Noble Lord who presides over the Ministry was at one time connected with Lewis's. The man in the street does not give "two hoots" for the niceties of what was or what might be. Over a period of 13 weeks in 1938–39 this firm sold 8 cwts. of boiled beef ham. In a similar period of 10 weeks in 1940–41 they sold six tons. Where did they get it? They got it from one Group I manufacturer. It was manufactured from what is known as silverside, I admit boneless beef, but boneless beef of such a quality that it was deliberately intended for that purpose and not boneless as we understand for the manufacture of sausages and the cheaper commodities consumed by the working class. A peculiar thing about this business is that during the period when this firm were selling six tons of beef ham their supplier was restricted to 30 percent. of his 1938–39 requirements. Where did he get the raw material? The Minister has given me the assurance that he received only his allocation on the basis upon which allocations were made.
There is only one other explanation—and this is the crux of the question. The


firm who supplied the meat had on their books at one time approximately 47 customers, and during this period the number of customers dropped to 17. This firm was getting supplies diverted. Hon. Members will say, I am sure, "One firm's money is as good as another's." I know, but possibly it is not so plentiful with the others as in the case of the single individual. The result was that supplies of cooked meat were being diverted from working-class districts throughout the West of Scotland. I would add that this is only one illustration which I am-bringing to the notice of the Committee. What was the effect of this diversion? On Saturday forenoon the Glasgow transport system was in a state of chaos through people going to Lewis's Stores for the purpose of collecting beef ham. It cluttered up the transport, and it created discontent far beyond the boundaries of Glasgow, because it became the common talk that in any district where Lewis's did not operate there were no cooked meats to be got. No mention has been made of bringing tinned foods within the category of controlled foods. This same firm had tens of thousands of tins of cooked casserole stew. I am not exaggerating. It was purchased at 1s. 4d. per tin and was retailed to the public at 2s. When the management were called to book, they tried to justify 33 percent. profit as a reasonable selling profit. It is not lingerie they were trading in, but foodstuffs; and if the sale of foodstuffs was an ancillary to their principle business before the war it has now become one of the most important branches of the business—of that and other firms. They claimed at that time that 33 percent. profit was not an excess profit.
For some obscure reason, while those who were indulging in this practice were known, the public Press soft-pedalled. The reasons for that were not very far to seek. I have checked up on the matter, and it is strange that in every industrial part of Britain where these multiple stores operate, it is common talk that if you want anything in the food line you should go to Lewis's or to Marks and Spencer's. I am not suggesting that there is anything significant in the fact that the noble Lord was associated with the firm, but I am definitely stating that there is no control over the prices paid to manufacturers by persons who desire to secure almost a monopoly of their goods. When

I left Glasgow, cooked sausage was being sold at 2s. 6d. per lb. It must be a wonderful sausage. If the Ministry does not regulate such practices it will create more trouble than enough, and not only for itself as a national body but for food control committees.
We have protested times without number. It may be unusual for the chairman of a food control committee to be so inquisitive as to inquire from his food executive officers what is going on and to demand explanations, but, for good or for ill, I have made a practice of so doing since the Glasgow Food Committee was set up. We have protested to the Ministry in regard to the switching of the sugar ration. We have protested against the supply of sugar for manufacturing purposes. Sugar is supplied to ice-cream manufacturers who do not manufacture ice-cream. Any Italian who is left with a shop can draw sugar for the purpose of manufacturing ice-cream although he does not manufacture ice-cream. We have protested about the underworld of egg distribution. The Minister has asked me to give him the evidence about egg distributors who are charging 7s. a case over the invoice price. If he will give me a guarantee that the shopkeepers will get their normal supplies, all the evidence needed can be forthcoming.
There is no wholesale price for eggs in the West of Scotland. The Minister may say that there is a wholesale price and a retail price, but the retailers are faced with the position that, unless they are prepared to become parties to an illegal action they will be deprived of their supply of eggs and their customers, registered for other commodities, will buy their unrationed goods in establishments whose proprietors are not so particular. That kind of thing is going on all over the country. Why should people be compelled to queue up for eggs? The only queue you will see in any industrial city is the queue for eggs. I have five books deposited with the local co-operative society, and I have received three eggs in four weeks. Fishmongers will not tell you what they pay for eggs but they will tell you what they sell them for. They sell them for the controlled price. People do not like to go to a fishmonger's shop to ask for eggs but they will go for fish, in the hope that me man will unbend and let them have eggs as well. If we prosecute, as we sometimes


do—perhaps I ought not to mention this, as the Law Officers for Scotland are not here—you find that firms make £5,000 or £6,000 in one deal after they have paid their fines. You find a firm, with 19 previous convictions for violations of the Order, making a twentieth appearance, when they are fined £1. That sort of thing ought not to be permitted.
There are many difficulties confronting local food offices and first in importance are those imposed upon them by the boys in the back room at Colwyn Bay. If the Minister of Labour were here, I would suggest that he might, with advantage to the country, have a comb-out at Colwyn Bay. There is an issue of circulars and instructions by the hundred, as well as the cancellations that arrive at the food offices before the arrival of the circulars which they are designed to cancel. There are 86,000 forms lying in Glasgow food office and nobody will tell the committee what to do with them. I suppose they will be part of the confidential wastage. On the other hand, when you indent to have the windows of the office cleaned at a cost of 15s., you have to wait four and a half months—and even then there is no answer. There should be closer co-operation between Colwyn Bay and food executive officers. I suggest that the Minister might release some of the boys at Colwyn Bay and send them to the industrial areas to study the difficulties for the creation of which they are responsible.
Please bear in mind that food control staffs have been hastily got together and are not part of the Civil Service in the accepted sense of having been trained in the Civil Service. They have been asked to perform a very difficult job. I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the cooperation expected from Colwyn Bay is not forthcoming. I make the final plea to the Minister that he should convey this message to his Noble Friend. However important it is that he should make weighty pronouncements on the wireless about what a magnificent administration can give to people by way of extra rations, he should be good enough to inform food executive officers about the matter beforehand, and give the date on which the concession is likely to come into operation. That is better than indicating to people by wireless that they can get extra rations of this, that or the other commodity and

having food offices besieged and retailers almost put out of business because the goods are not there to be supplied. We ask that Colwyn Bay should, at least, give us the co-operation to which we are entitled. We think that the question of cooked meat constitutes now a major problem. We cannot see any reason why Group I manufacturers should not be brought within control, and we cannot see how retailers who desire to play the game can do so if the wholesalers, who stand outside the scheme of control and with whom they are dealing, do not play the game by them. I hope that there will be closer relationship between food control committees and the powers-that-be at Colwyn Bay, but I am satisfied that if that closer co-operation is not forthcoming the confusion which has existed from time to time in big industrial areas will become worse as the food situation worsens.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I understand that this Debate is to be concerned largely with the distribution of food, but I hope that reference to another and closely allied subject, will be permissible. I consider that one of the most important questions of the present time, is the provision of bread which contains the wheat germ and the salts of the wheat germ. In the Debate on the Ministry of Food Estimates in July, 1940, a very large part of the time was occupied by discussion of the national loaf, and it will be remembered that the then Parliamentary Secretary announced that the Ministry contemplated the provision of a loaf which I think he called the "fortified loaf". A very eminent scientist has called it the "faked loaf" and some others have called it the "doctored loaf"—a name which I am inclined to think is an insult to my profession. At all events, it has been much debated, and 1 submit that it is a very much discredited loaf at the present time.
What is the pertinence of this problem at the present moment? I think it has two aspects. One is the shipping problem. As the Parliamentary Secretary had said to-day, there has been a "great tightening of the shipping position." The Minister without Portfolio told the House last November that the shipping position then very closely resembled that of April, 1917, which was the time of the most critical


position that had ever arisen in the food supply of this nation. What are the facts in regard to shipping? A very conservative estimate would place the saving to be effected by the introduction of a universal, compulsory whole wheat loaf at not less than 500,000 tons in a year, so there is ample evidence in support of the statement that shipping space would be materially saved by its compulsory introduction.
From the medical point of view, on which I, of course, can speak with more knowledge, the question becomes a very important one. There is now a shortage of many foodstuffs, notably milk, vegetables, and fruit—the staple provision of what are called vitamins, salts and other things necessary for nutrition. All those items are now practically unobtainable or are very difficult to obtain by the poorer classes of the community. If those supplies are removed, the importance of the remaining sources becomes correspondingly increased, and it is not too much to say that bread will be the principal, if not the sole, source of energy and vitamins for the population generally. The proposal to substitute, or to provide simultaneously, what has been called the reinforced loaf is, I submit, a very dangerous expedient, because people will be led to suppose that the reinforced loaf is, in fact, a proper substitute for the whole wheat loaf, which is entirely and absolutely a mistaken proposition.
How much this proposition has been contested will, I think, be obvious to anyone who has studied the Press or scientific journals in the last few months. All that is proposed to be done with the reinforced loaf is do add a totally inadequate quantity of one of the constituents, known as Vitamin B1. That is only one of a very important group of substances which are contained in the. wheat germ and which are excluded in the process of milling. Not only is that a matter of observation; it has also been a matter of experiment. A very important and authoritative experiment was carried out a few months ago, in which the flour contemplated by the Ministry for the making of the reinforced loaf was tested against wholemeal flour. The result of that experiment was absolutely crushing in favour of the whole wheat flour. It was carried out on rats—a very common means of testing such things—

and there is no question at all that the whole wheat loaf was enormously superior and that the official loaf "fell down" at once on trial.
The position I take up is that the whole wheat loaf is a natural product and that it has the constituents that are necessary. How far that is the opinion of scientists was admitted by the Noble Lord in the speech he made six or seven weeks ago, when he said that he was convinced by the unanimity of scientific opinion that the whole wheat loaf was very much more nutritious than any substitute. As a matter of fact, the Noble Lord has shown some symptoms of a welcome conversion from the position taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary in July, 1940. Then it was said that nobody would eat the loaf and that it was not worth providing. The Noble Lord, on the contrary, said that he was convinced that the whole wheat loaf was a very much better loaf, and that he trusted that those responsible for advising the public would press its claims. Everyone in the House will no doubt have seen the spate of advertisements from the Ministry of Food, in which the greatest possible praise is given to the whole wheat loaf.
That is quite a different position from that which was assumed in the Debate in 1940. We are told in these advertisements that it is the "plus" loaf; that everybody who has tried it likes it better than anything they have ever eaten before. Everybody is urged to ask for it, and, incidentally, I may say that if you do ask for it, as often as not you will not get it. That is because there is a repugnance, possibly natural, on the part of the millers and the bakers to supply that particular kind of loaf, one reason being that the processes of manufacture of whole wheat flour are much simpler than in the case of white flour, and much of their machinery lies idle in the course of its production, with consequent waste of capital. I, personally, have had difficulty in getting the loaf, and when I have had it it has been so badly baked and so utterly distasteful— simply full of salt—that it has been almost uneatable. I think we must, unfortunately, reckon with a certain tendency on the part of those who supply the loaf, which the Ministry is trying to induce the public to buy, to make it unpalatable.
The Minister's reason for not making this loaf compulsory has been a very un-


fortunate one. He seems to think that there will be difficulty in persuading the public to eat it, but surely, in the state of our country at the present time, we all gladly welcome compulsion if it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. I do not think there would be any difficulty such as he anticipates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) who was in charge of the Ministry of Food in the last war will, I think, bear out my statement that there was extremely little difficulty in getting that loaf accepted by the public. That reform was undertaken at perhaps the most critical period of the Great War in 1917 and 1918. The loaf was introduced in the summer of 1917. At the end of the war, that is at the end of two years after its introduction, comparison was made of health statistics before and after the use of the loaf, and a very important and valuable report was made sponsored by Professor Gowland Hopkins, who is the principal authority on vitamins, and Professor Ernest Starling, one of the greatest physiologists this country has ever produced. A very important and authoritative committee of the Royal Society examined the question and pronounced absolutely in favour of the whole wheat loaf, supporting the contention that the health of the nation had greatly improved by reason of its provision.
What is the obstacle to introducing this loaf at the present time? I confess I am unable to explain it. We have had in the last few days an announcement that the Union of South Africa, facing very much the same difficulties in the shortage of wheat, and desiring to provide the most nutritive loaf possible, have decreed that from 1st May this year white flour will not be sold in the Union on any terms. It may be asked, "What are you going to do with the reinforced loaf?" We have had very contradictory statements about the progress made in providing that loaf. Questions in Parliament have shown that the advent of that loaf has been postponed again and again. I, personally, have asked questions as to one of the important additions, the addition of calcium, which is regarded by a large number of qualified scientists as being undesirable. I have here a paper by some half-dozen chemists who have shown that calcium added to bread must be regarded as an adulteration, and that it

is highly undesirable from a health point of view. The clinical evidence—and, after all, this is a clinical matter—is contradictory, but, on the whole, it is against the addition of calcium. We are faced with the position that no action has yet been taken either as to the nature of the salt or as to the quantity to be added to bread.
The argument for the provision of the whole wheat loaf becomes progressively greater. I believe that there is a rule in banking, known as Gresham's Law, that if you have two currencies, one authentic and the other counterfeit, the counterfeit generally wins in the long run. I hope that the Minister will decide to abolish the counterfeit loaf, as I must describe it; and that he will bank upon the whole wheat loaf as an immediate and compulsory provision, without wasting any more time on persuasion. If there were no hurry and we could afford to pursue the very slow course of advertisements and so forth, I would say nothing. But that ought not to be our procedure at the present time. I urge the Minister to take courage and to proceed at once with the provision of a whole wheat loaf, on the lines, I am perfectly prepared to say, which were suggested in his last pronouncement. That is not a complete whole wheat loaf, but a loaf of approximately 85 percent. extraction. That is a very usual British compromise. Some of us would like 100 percent.; others say, "Let us be satisfied with the present 70 percent. extraction of the flour." Eighty-five percent. is a happy medium between those two extremes. A loaf of 85 percent. extraction, as a universal and compulsory provision, would, I think, satisfy all parties, and would, I am sure, be to the benefit of the nation.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In seeking the indulgence of the Committee, I feel sure that it will be accorded to me in the customary manner. I wish to offer the Parliamentary Secretary my congratulations on handling, in such a skilful manner, what appeared to be a very difficult brief. I know that had the noble Lord, his chief, been in the hon. and gallant Member's place, different remarks would probably have been offered in the subsequent Debate. Up to a point, there is reason to believe that the business ability and wide business experience of the noble Lord the Minister have been


applied in his Department, in the execution of his duties, in a most satisfactory manner. But not all our hopes have been fulfilled. The noble Lord's speeches have often been loaded with promise, and we have had rosy pictures painted by him. But I believe that when deputations, of which I understand he has received many, have dared to challenge his judgment or his decisions, he has repeatedly said—in fact, I have heard him say so myself— that it is not his duty to rectify inequalities which have stood for years among groups and classes. That only means the perpetuation and intensification of injustices and unnecessary distinctions between rich and poor.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I remind him of the Industrial Commission which sat in 1917, during the last war. It was set up to inquire into the genuine causes of uneasiness and unrest in the country at that time. I believe it reported in July of that year. According to the report, it was agreed by the Commissioners that among causes of unrest the most serious appeared to be the prevailing high level of prices in relation to wages, and the unequal distribution of food. It is true that to-day we have a somewhat different position, although the present system is not altogether satisfactory. Unrationed foods are, almost invariably, either very scarce or prohibitive in price. We contend that no man, woman or child should go short of necessary foodstuffs while the better-off are able to purchase unlimited supplies at higher prices.
The Parliamentary Secretary spent some time to-day in justifying the big dinners served in restaurants and hotels. In first-class hotels and restaurants 6s. dinners and 5s. suppers can still be obtained. One often finds on the menus roast duck or roast fowl, boiled pigeon, and various other similar foodstuffs. None of these meals calls for the surrender of a single coupon, and there is usually on the plate a good shillings worth, the equivalent of a normal week's ration. The selling price of ducks and fowls has increased amazingly in the last few months. Boiling fowls that could have been purchased at 3s. 6d. a few months ago are now fetching at least 9s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. Apart from a few herrings and bloaters, the average housewife has difficulty in buying even a portion of fish, to augment

the very short ration of meat. That, it is fairly obvious, is the reason for the increase in the selling prices of these particular fowls. These restaurateurs and hotel proprietors are prepared to pay very high prices indeed to satisfy their wealthy clients. If the housewife wishes to augment her meagre shillings worth of meat each week, all that she can find in the butcher's shop is probably a few sausages, a cow heel or two, or maybe, a few animal lights. That is a subject of much comment at the present time in my division. Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, I cannot believe that he will allow this system to continue throughout the war. There is a ready-made opportunity awaiting him, if he wishes to use it. I do not know whether it is his intention to ask that those who partake of these big meals should surrender half a meat coupon. I believe that, if such an order were immediately introduced, we should soon regulate the demand, and the rabbits, poultry, ducks and fish would find their way back into the shops, and housewives would be able to purchase them at more reasonable prices than they can do to-day.
I am not unmindful of the ready-made contrast, which I have often heard mentioned, and which was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the workers have their own canteens. That is true in many cases, but there are many employers who ought to be encouraged considerably more than they have been in the past to provide facilities, which, up to now, they have not deemed it necessary to do. Where those canteens have been provided, they have been for workers who deserve extra rations. It is very necessary that the munition and factory workers should have a good hot meal during the day. In my boyhood days I can recall taking my small meal in a little basket or a red handkerchief to the workshop where I went each morning, but I am very glad to notice the change in industrial life to-day. If we could transfer some of these necessary foodstuffs back to the shops and make them more available to the housewives, these hotel and restaurant loungers would be given the kind of opportunity, which I would like to see them have, of having to queue up with the rest of us, because they seem to have plenty of time on their hands.
Several months ago the Noble Lord, in his messages to the housewives, suggested that they should go easy on the can-opener. I well remember the broadcast. I hope that he did not mean that in relation to canned vegetables. I took particular notice of what the Parliamentary Secretary said to-day when he referred to his visit probably to the corner grocery shop. I presume that, like me, he does a little shopping occasionally to help his wife. I am sure that he knows that, in our grocers' and greengrocers' shops to-day, there are considerable stocks of every known line of canned vegetables, but in recent months it has been very noticeable also that the selling prices of these canned vegetables have risen in most cases by about 100 percent. The housewife has naturally had to go slow with the can-opener, because she cannot afford to buy the canned vegetables.
There is also the price of fresh salads, which are almost a daily feature of the "Kitchen Front" talks just after the news each morning. They have been emphasising the need for using more fresh salads, but the majority of the housewives are asking who determines the prices for these fresh salads. Lettuces, which a little more than a year ago were costing 4d. and 5d., cannot be obtained to-day under 9d. or 10d., and housewives, naturally, ask who determines or fixes the prices of these fresh salads, causing them, unfortunately, to have to go without them. Mention has been made of the supply of oranges. The wireless communiqué told us of the valiant work that the Noble Lord had done in arranging the equitable distribution of these oranges and how he had been able to get them into different parts of the country. That is all very nice, and perhaps very juicy too, but I submit that the orange purchase, combined with the statement over the radio, was glorified window-dressing. His publicity department gave the signal to housewives last week-end to queue up on Monday morning to participate in their share of the Food Minister's Spanish raffle. That some housewives obtained a few oranges I have no doubt, but I wonder how many oranges went to the esquires and to the friends of the distributors. I have heard of some of them going into different quarters other than hospitals. The Par

liamentary Secretary may ask whether we do not agree with the importing of oranges in war time. We do not object to the importation of oranges in war-time if we can afford the shipping space, but when we have gathered the oranges into the harbour, I am sure that Members of this Committee would far rather see them go to the children, the clinics, nurseries, hospitals and particularly needy cases. Adults do not need oranges in war-time. Children should have first consideration.
The Ministers have possibly received various protests about the jam rationing scheme, to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. At best, it is only a partial rationing scheme. It fixes the minimum ration of a half-pound per head per month. It says that you may have, or that you are guaranteed your half-pound by the retailer. If he should have a surplus, then he may sell to whom he favours any surplus he may have in stock. I have already heard of one retailer buying over £8,000 worth of salvage stock from what is called the catch-as-catch-can wholesaler—I believe that that is the term used in the trade—and he is permitted to engage in a transaction such as that and to sell unlimited quantities to his registered customers.
I saw a resolution only last night passed by a local food committee a few miles outside London, and they themselves regarded the scheme as a hotch-potch system of rationing. The main weakness of the jam and marmalade scheme lies in the one fact that it does not guarantee to the retailer that he shall have enough jam to go round or to satisfy his customers, because there is no real co-ordination between the producer and the retailer. They have to rely in the main upon middlemen for supplies, and I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should recommend to his Noble Friend an amendment of that particular weakness in the scheme. A few days ago I asked Questions in the House on the Milk Restriction Order, and afterwards I and others received an invitation to meet the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss this particular Order. Despite protests from all parts of the country and the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to-day, I cannot understand why the Minister of Food continues to say that the scheme is working up to expectations.
I will give an example which I believe is also a contradiction The Parliament-


ary Secretary said to-day that there was no intention of reducing or cutting the milk supply of customers who took only one pint of milk a day. Yet in almost the same sentence he said that if we were to have equitable rationing of milk, it would provide only two-fifths of a pint per day for each person in the country. If there art: two in a family and they take and continue to receive a pint, without suffering any cut, they will, according to his new interpretation of the Order, certainly get more than two-fifths of a pint per day. The Parliamentary Secretary admits that they would have only two-fifths of a pint each if everybody was rationed. On Monday I spent a little time studying newspapers, and I found that 42 weekly or daily papers had in the last nine days denounced the milk rationing scheme as a fiasco. They cannot all be wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, no doubt many are not authoritative on the subject of milk, but the trade union membership which handles milk warned the Minister beforehand of the consequences of his scheme. Roundsmen at their conferences and meetings are protesting daily at this grotesque scheme and the tasks which have been imposed upon them. Roundsmen in Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester and London—I believe there was a deputation of them yesterday to interview Members of the House—have expressed their determination to get some alteration in this scheme as early as possible because they believe it is unsound.
When we met the Minister of Food he said—and I would like to remind the Committee of his words—"It is not my job to rectify all the inequalities that have existed for years." That was the only answer he gave to us; he certainly listened, but he did not give us any real undertaking that he would endeavour to introduce equality of sacrifice. We want to help the Minister to secure reserve stocks of cheese and canned and dried milk for the winter months, but we suggest that there must be equality of sacrifice by everyone. If the Minister still believes that a full scheme of rationing is unworkable, I would like to remind him of an offer suggested to me by fellow trade unionists. We will provide three competent dairy managers and two trade union officials, who will in a few days work out a simple scheme of rationing which they will put into operation within

a fortnight, which will ensure registration with one retailer and an equitable maximum daily unit of supplies for every consumer in the land, based upon the number of ration books held in each household. I make that offer in the name of the people who are willing to help the Minister.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary needs reminding of the wonderful book written after the last war by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In it he said that the food problem in the last war was directly responsible for the collapse of Russia and that it was the final element which led to the collapse of Austria and Germany. Unquestionably, food is a munition of war, and inequitable distribution may mean the difference between solidarity and disunity in the country as a whole. Finally, I submit that if vision and imagination are applied by experts and advisers at the Ministry, if a more rigid rationing system is enforced and more equitable distribution is applied to all classes, it will do much to remove the uneasiness and unrest which are being expressed in all parts of the country to-day. We are not mentioning the words "uneasiness" and "unrest" because we like doing so, but because we feel we must. All-round efficiency at the top is essential if we are to pull through on this job. If we are to march shoulder to shoulder to that glorious victory which British workers believe in, then we must have the full co-operation of everybody, from the top to the bottom.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: I am sure all Members present would wish to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on the success of his maiden effort. It was quite evident that he was speaking about a subject on which he has not only thoroughly strong feelings but about which he has considerable inside knowledge. To speeches of that kind the House of Commons always listens gladly, and I feel that we shall listen gladly when he addresses us again. I am able to pay that customary tribute with all the more sincerity because I found myself, so far as I was able to judge, in agreement with nearly everything he said.
When I listened to the extremely interesting speech of my hon. and gallant


Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I was struck by one thing. He seemed to be under a misapprehension in thinking that what most of us were anxious about was that we were being rationed too strictly and that our one idea was that certain classes of people should get rather more than other classes. I share the anxieties about the inequality of distribution of foodstuffs, but to me the major anxiety is whether the community as a whole is not being allowed to eat much too freely. We are told day by day that the Battle of the Atlantic is a battle on which victory or defeat in this war will depend, and that it is more important than what happens in Greece, the Middle East, the Far East, or the Suez Canal. If that means anything, it means that there is a danger, if the Battle of the Atlantic goes awry, that we shall be starved of food and starved of munitions. Every meal unnecessarily consumed, whether it has been produced at home or has come from abroad—for one is a substitute for the other—means that more space in ships is taken by food and less space is available for munitions. Every unnecessary ounce of food that is consumed will contribute possibly to a defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic. I do not believe my hon. and gallant Friend can disagree with that proposition. If that be the state of things when the war has been going on for 18 months and the Battle of the Atlantic is at a very anxious stage, can it be right that people should be able to eat and drink as much as they please, the only limit being their spending capacity? For that is the situation.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has assured us that, with regard to meat, what happens in the restaurants does not so much matter because only about 8 percent. of the meat consumed in this country is consumed in public eating places. It seems to me rather curious that he should have told us that, and that in another part of his speech he should have said that the reason he was not extending to meat the rationing system that prevailed in the last war was that so many more people are eating in public eating places now than in the last war. I should have thought that argument cut exactly the other way. The more people are encouraged to eat in public eating places—and the whole process of calling into existence canteens and

communal dining rooms is an encouragement to people to eat in public eating places—the more the proportion of food consumed there will grow. That being so, how can it be safe to put no limits to the amount of food so consumed? I ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary: Suppose that he resumed his old profession and was the commander of the army of a beleagured city, and knew that the fate not only of that city but of the whole country of which the city formed a part would depend on how long his army could hold out, and that this, in turn, depended on how long the food held out, would he distribute the food in the kind of way he is allowing food to be distributed in this country? Would he exert no more control over it than he is exerting to-day?
We are practically not being asked to tighten our belts one bit. I am afraid the only result of this will be that the day may come when we shall have to tighten our belts to starvation point. There has been gross extravagance in the past in the whole of food expenditure. There is a tightening now, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, because the pressure at sea has become greater. Does that tightening go far enough? In the matter of canned foods, the hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to give any reply to my Question, or to the Questions of other hon. Members, as to what is the position about canned foods. I cannot understand why he refused to do so. How could it help the enemy to know whether we are or are not restricting the consumption of canned foods? How could it help the trade to profiteer in them? The trade knows whether there is or is not a restriction. Have not hon. Members a right to know whether precious canned foods which will be far more needed in winter than in summer are being bought up and consumed as freely as spending power allows? The Parliamentary Secretary ought to be able to reassure us a little on that matter.
I come now to the question of relative distribution. Some people seem to think they have met my case when they point out that to-day the people who eat in hotels and restaurants are not only rich people. I never thought they were. If it were only a question of the rich, the rich in this country at the present time


are so few that, although it would be psychologically worse, it would be actually much better if only the rich were able to eat in restaurants. It is the better-paid section of the working-class population who are eating in restaurants and other public eating places. The proportion will grow as more public eating places are opened. But I do not think that movement will ever go so far—unless my hon. and gallant Friend and the Noble Lord change their system— that it will be true that the present system does not every day and in every way favour the relatively well-to-do' as compared with the really poor. Who arc the people who do not now, and probably never will be able to, feed in communal eating places? They are the mothers at home, with young children, and the children who go to school, hardly any of whom, relatively speaking, get school dinners now. They cannot afford to eat even in the cheapest of public restaurants. Tell a woman whose husband is earning £3 10s., or even £4 a week, to take her children to Lyons every day and get them a good dinner there, and she will laugh in your face and ask you how she could possibly afford to do any such thing. Therefore, the system of limited rationing, plus free eating in public eating places, is a disadvantage to the poorest class of the community and those whose health matters most—the rising generation, the young children.
What does a very poor woman feed her children on? What are the principal constituents of their daily meals? It is not meat. The rationing of meat does not matter so much to her, because she cannot afford meat. Nor can she afford butter. Perhaps she does not even get very much milk, because she can afford precious little for that, as a liquid drink. There is tea, with a liberal dose of milk in it and plenty of sugar; bread, and margarine and jam—all of them rationed foods, all of them foods which the woman can supply to her children only so far as her ration lasts. If my jam ration does not last, I can buy honey, which is far too expensive for the working-class mother. If my tea ration gives out, coffee is available, and if my sugar does not last, there is saccharine. Meat can be supplemented with poultry

and fish. All those supplementary things are far too expensive for the poor.
I think it was my hon. and gallant Friend who said that it was not the duty of those engaged in the Ministry to change all the fundamental inequalities of society. I know that is not their duty, but I will tell my hon. and gallant Friend one fundamental inequality which it is his duty to rectify, and that is, inequality of sacrifice which arises out of the war situation. He cannot change those monstrous inequalities between rich and poor which are a blot upon any community that calls itself Christian. We must wait for such a change, which can come only by gradual improvements that will bring us nearer to a sort of equality, at any rate an equality of opportunity. But when an inequality arises directly out of the war, it ought to be possible, and it is possible, to see that there is equality of sacrifice. Food distribution is a difficulty that arises out of the war, and it is monstrous that there should be such gross inequalities as there are at present. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the 8 percent. of meat consumed in public restaurants does not matter so much. I should like to know what proportion of all rationed foodstuffs, and not only meat, is consumed in public eating places. I shall try to extract that information from the hon. and gallant Gentleman by a Parliamentary Question if I do not get it to-day.
I can tell the Ministers that, psychologically, this question is by no means negligible. The people of this country, as the Minister has boasted, are standing up to the war miraculously, and are showing plenty of that spirit of pluck and self-sacrifice, about which the Prime Minister has justly boasted. Hitler will not get them down, but there is one thing that might, and that is the carking, nagging feeling that "It is all very well; they praise us and throw bouquets to us, but all the time it is we who have to bear the greater part of the sacrifice." If that feeling is allowed to spread, and if there is justification for it in the public mind, then beware. That may break down the morale of our people. If it is necessary for us to endure far greater sacrifices, even if we have to eat acorns, as some of the people in Spain are doing, as a temporary sacrifice, so long as we can keep going, what is that compared


with the sacrifice of the men in the Services who are risking their lives? We are willing to bear all that, but let us make quite sure that there is justice at the bottom of it. I do not think that the Ministry of Food is being conducted with anything like due regard to that principle of justice and equality of sacrifice.

Mr. Clynes: I was prevented from attending the Committee in time to listen to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have heard, however, from many sources such warm and appreciative compliments that I would like to join with others in congratulating him, adding my ardent wish for his continued and complete success in the arduous duties he has undertaken. Let me also say that I listened with the greatest interest to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. E. Walkden), which, in form and substance, was a helpful contribution to the solution of an important problem. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary was not disappointed with it. I wish to offer a few observations on some aspects of the problem, and to cite one or two particular cases, which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of with a view to their reconsideration. I am certain that whoever addresses the Committee on this subject will be mindful of the enormous difficulties of the Ministry of Food in seeking to satisfy the appetites of millions of people several times a day, and to do the just thing as between groups and classes. If we allow for all these difficulties, we are entitled to ask whether these problems have been satisfactorily handled within the powers of the Ministry, and whether they have always been skilfully thought out by those personally responsible. The Minister is faced nearly every day with new problems. Conditions are constantly changing. When ships are sunk the food goes down with them, and we suffer a loss. The disappointment must often have been bitter when news of sinkings has reached the Ministry.
We must ask, however, what has caused food to disappear from the market when prices and supplies have been fixed by the Ministry? We have had no explanation of how that occurs. It has occurred so frequently that it has become common knowledge, and the Ministry

must accept responsibility for the evasion of its services, its decisions and its duties. The Government is the buyer of food, the owner of food, the price-fixer and the distributor. They have unlimited powers to do all that must needs be done to make the best use of the food which comes to these shores. They must work under conditions of shortage, if actual shortage there be. Let us pay those who are working in food distribution fairly for their services, but let us make them pay if they try to evade that duty. There are very severe penalties imposed upon a workman who evades his duty. A number of workmen have been fined and some imprisoned for failing to turn up for their work. If workmen are to be punished for evading their duties in time of war, the food traders who fail to fulfil their functions, whether they are retailers or wholesalers, should be compelled, as others are, to discharge their duties.
I submit that there are three minimum requirements to be sought after and achieved. In the first place the duty of the Minister of Food is to bring about complete suppression of profiteering, because high prices mean a prohibitive barrier has been erected against the poor as a particular class, and that they are thereby greatly handicapped. Secondly, there should be complete prevention of extortionate prices. I have been puzzled and startled, on making inquiries recently, by the prices of poultry and fish, which are, of course, unrationed food. We are told that these commodities can be bought by the rich, and that there is a considerable artisan population in this country who are earning fairly good money for their work. But I am told, in my own household, that fish, which could be bought for 6d. two or three years ago, now costs 3s., and that the position is even worse in the case of poultry. These increased prices are an extortion and ought to be prevented. The third object which we must regard as a minimum achievement by the Ministry of Food, is equitable distribution from the source to the shop. I do not believe that in all circumstances, and in respect of all foods, those conditions have been established.
These, then, are minimum requirements. They should not merely be the aim or the object. They should be presented to us in the form of actual achievements. It is clear that some food traders


are evading their duty. If food traders or shopkeepers are deliberately refusing to serve the public, they should not escape punishment. If the Ministry at present has not sufficient power to pursue any offending class in the right direction, Parliament would readily grant any further powers that may be required. My own feeling, based upon personal experience that I have had and upon a general knowledge of the British public, is that only a minority commit these wrongs and act unfairly to their fellows. But a minority can work much mischief and be the cause of: very great uneasiness and discontent. My view is that the vast majority of both traders and customers are honourable and fair in their dealings, and those who are not must be helped to resist temptation by State action which would make it impossible for them to do wrong. That, indeed, is the main purpose of most, if not all, law. I read the other night a most informing and interesting article in the "Star" which came from the pen of Wilson Midgley, an example of what was done in old England some 600 years ago by Kings and rulers who sought to prevent injustice to the people. King John took certain action with regard to offences committed by London bakers, and the record, as given to us by Mr. Midgley, was expressed in these words:
The bakers were all alike watched and pursued by the magistrates, who put them in the pillory and had them dragged in the streets on a hurdle with the offending loaves tied round their neck when the loaves were short weight.
For myself I should be a little more considerate. I do not want exhibitions or demonstrations to be carried so far, but it is essential that these offenders should be set up as examples in order that others shall not follow their evil courses. One means of preventing a good deal of this trouble was discovered and applied in the Food Ministry during the last war, and it operated through what we called a Consumers' Council. With the consent of my chief at that time, the late Lord Rhondda, I was able to bring together some 20 or more persons of great experience representing different classes of the public. They sat and worked within the Ministry and in close touch with various officials at the head of the different Departments. They formed a critical and constructive body. They felt their responsibility and they brought every week within the Min-

istry the experience of the prior week and the knowledge gained from the contacts which they had with the numerous classes which make up the British public. There is no Consumers' Council in the present Ministry. If there is anything like an equivalent body, I should be glad to hear of it. I am told that there are periodical consultations with some body which has not, as far as I know, been clearly defined. If there is any regular consultation of this kind, some such body equivalent to what the Consumers' Council was, ought to be created.
May I quote one or two particular cases to illustrate inequalities which are preventable and ought to be stopped? An endeavour has been made to do the right thing by those who are working exceptionally hard. There are sections of railway workers whose work is rather irregular and keeps them from home throughout the day, and very often a large part of the night. They require more than those who live a normal life and enjoy regular hours. I have received letters from sections of railwaymen justly expressing their grievances. I communicated with the Minister some time ago regarding groups of quarry-workers. I have had close contact with quarry-workers in my more active days as a trade union officer and I know something of the arduousness of their work. It is a much exposed job. They have heavy loads to carry, to lift, and to break, and I cannot imagine any section of the working-class more entitled to additional food, if any section is to have additional food. The Noble Lord's answer was that as far as there had been selection for additional food, the selections had been made after fair discussion with certain Labour representatives—I think that was the right form —and the truth of the matter was that selection was very difficult after all.
That is quite true, but what is the good of doing an easy job? The difficult jobs are made to be taken in hand by administrators and it is not enough to say it is difficult to do a thing. All those who accept onerous positions must make themselves equal to' such positions and overcome the difficulties if it is humanly possible to do so. I saw a letter in the "Daily Herald" some days ago from a quarry-worker who had fought throughout the last war. His son, aged 16, is work-


ing on the land and, because of the class of work that he is doing, is receiving an additional ration of food. The son of 16, doing a lighter job, receives an additional ration but the father still must go without. I think these are cases for reconsideration. No decision can be so perfect as never to need further consideration by those in authority. Despite the suffering of the public, they exhibit the greatest fortitude and the greatest confidence in those who are guiding the affairs of the country. The Minister must double the skill and courage that war time demands, if the good will of the public is to be retained. With a combination of statesmanship and with the continued confidence of the British public we need not fear the end of the war.

Mr. Robertson: It gives me much pleasure to follow my old chief, who was head of the Ministry of Food in the last war, and I only regret that the pangs of hunger drove me out of the House and prevented my hearing the whole of his speech. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if his Department had made mistakes, they frankly admitted them. I have some points in regard to them, and I hope that if I am right, the same kind of mistakes will not occur again, because they are of major importance. The meat ration was introduced on 16th March, 1940, at 1s. 10d. per head. It continued until 27th September at that rate. On the following day it became 2s. 2d., and on the 7th December it became 1s. 10d. On 1st January it was reduced to 1s. 6d. and on 4th January to 1s. 2d. Within a period of two calendar months the meat ration, the basic food ration of the country, was reduced by almost one-half. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary told us to-day that if the meat consumed in all the restaurants, hotels, canteens and other catering enterprises were taken from them and added to the household ration, it would amount to only one-thirteenth. In a period of two months, however, the Ministry of Food reduced the national ration of meat by one-half. What is the reason? What kind of accounts can this Department keep? What kind of stock account can they keep? Have they no idea of what is in store, of what they have purchased from the Argentine and elsewhere? Do they not know what is coming to them?

They cannot, or this situation would never have occurred.
I remember that about that time of the year—it happens every year. —cattle and sheep were coming in from the hills at the end of the summer season, and they were being tendered for sale at the auction marts throughout the country but sent back to the farmers because the Ministry of Food could not deal with them. The Ministry had to break their agreements, and the farmers had to take their beasts back and lose money, because in the winter the beasts lose weight and cost more in keep. Why were they not killed and put into cold storage? I am in the cold storage business when I am in anything but politics, and I can tell the Minister that there was plenty of room in the cold stores at that date. There was no need to bring in panic legislation to increase the ration to 2s. 2d. to deal with the surplus and then to reduce it. At that time frozen meat which might have been kept in store was being lashed out every week. The result is that we have trifled with the manual workers, who are our sacred trust, the heavy workers in coal mining and other industries, who have to do a heavy week's work on 1s. worth of meat. This country will work on no meat at all if necessary, but it will not put up with ministerial bungling of that kind.
The basis of the meat ration during the past months has been home-produced cattle and sheep. I am particularly interested in that question, because in the absence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) I have been meeting farmers there recently—farmers who cannot get a livelihood because of the ridiculously low prices which they are paid for their mutton. Their light-weight hill sheep have been the basis of the ration and have kept the country going during the winter. The State, through the Ministry of Food, says to them, "You produce the best mutton in the world, but you produce the worst wool, so we are going to give you a flat rate for mutton and the lowest price for wool." That is not a fair equation, and my hon. and gallant Friend will have to put it right if he wishes the sheep farmers to continue. In one estate on the border of Peebles there are 48 hill-sheep farms unlet. These farms should not be unlet in war-


time, and they would be quickly occupied if the Ministry paid a decent return to the farmer. It is not within the Ministry's terms of reference to keep the great hill-sheep farming industry in a state of suspended bankruptcy. If it was represented by a powerful trade union that would not happen. The industry consists of little individual fellows in the West Highlands, Wales and Cumberland. They are not very articulate and have not a very strong organisation to support them, but there are Members of this House who will support them, and I am one of them.
I mentioned that I was interested in the cold-storage industry, and I said that because to a minute extent I am interested in the profits. In September, when enemy attacks became heavy, the Ministry of Food properly decided to take over the whole of the cold storage industry. The purpose, I imagine, was to ensure that in any circumstances every cold store would be kept working whether it was possible to do it economically or not. Many of the stores were in a position to receive fat cattle and sheep, the comparatively empty state I have already mentioned. This scheme was introduced, and it will interest the Committee to know that it cut right across two major measures, the Excess Profits Tax and Income Tax. The industry was called to a meeting at Colwyn Bay where they met what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) called "the boys in the back room." They were told that it was all wrong that excess profits should be taken out of the industry and that it was all wrong what Parliament had done. Parliament decided that the Excess Profits Tax should be levied and how the money was to be spent, but the Colwyn Bay boys said, "It is all wrong." The industry did not mind because they were losing the money anyway. This was a national risk, a risk of cold stores being damaged, and it was right to keep them open, but improper to keep them open by expenditure not directly controlled by this House.
Cold Storage Companies were being deprived of their pre-war standard of profits. I know a company whose two years' pre-war standard of profits of £11,000 would have been reduced to £400. When the trade woke up to the fact that they were having to pay an insurance premium for this national risk, they asked the Min-

istry to receive them so that they could negotiate with them. The trade were invited to Colwyn Bay to negotiate about the scheme, which was a complex one and surrounded by all the papers which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton- shire mentioned. It was difficult for the people in the trade to understand all its complexities. When they went to Colwyn Bay they were handed an Order promulgated on the previous day under the Emergency Powers Act, and this made it impossible for them to negotiate, for it laid down the terms under which cold stores were to be taken over. They were not told that the Order was subject to the approval of this House. If they had been they would have got into touch with Members of Parliament. I only accidentally learned of it and was able to go to my hon. and gallant Friend. I thank him for the way in which, at the eleventh hour, within a minute of the Order becoming law, he realised that the reports which I put to him were correct. He increased the basic gross revenue by 150 percent. and the maximum gross revenue by 50 percent. If I had not intervened, and if he had not received me in a sympathetic manner, the Order would have been law, and the industry, because of their lack of representation, would have been treated in a most unfair way. The cold-storage industry, like all others, is anxious to co-operate with the Ministry, you can have everything if the country needs it in an emergency, but you have no right to invent special regulations to give them less than a bare livelihood. That has never been authorised by this House. I earnestly hope that the Committee will take notice of the dangerous situation which arises when officials can, under emergency powers which were given to enable us to face the enemy at the gates, promulgate an Order which makes futile the legislation of the Finance Act which we had examined here Clause by Clause.
I have a point to make in regard to the fishing industry. There have been a good many references to this vital industry. Many months before the war broke out I went to the Food Defence Plans Department. In the last war there was no Food Defence Plans Department working for some 18 months before war broke out. The Ministry of Food started at that time in 1916, and Lord Rhondda and others improvised as they went along, yet they


made a good job of it. I went to the Food Defence Plans Department with my 20 years' experience in the fishing industry as a director of trawling companies and distributing companies, and I told them that fish would become scarce in war, because I felt certain that the Admiralty would call up vessels. I was told, "Fish is not an essential." The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated that to-day. But it becomes very essential when people have only 1s. worth of meat per week.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot let that statement pass. I did not at any time say that, in my speech or anywhere else.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. and gallant Friend said that in regard to essential matters his Ministry had done a good job of work and obviously —

Major Lloyd George: I really must correct my hon. Friend. The point was that certain essential foods imported into this country were regarded as staple commodities and they were controlled because they came to the ports, and therefore the Ministry had complete control from the time they were landed.

Mr. Robertson: That reply is most unconvincing. I was told at the Ministry of Food, and it is my deep impression, that fish has not been controlled because it was regarded as a non-essential article of food. I wonder what people are expected to live on. Fish is very important when the food supply is so much reduced. I grant the Ministry of Food full measure of praise for what they have succeeded in doing, and I think that on the whole they have done a good job, but when they have done a bad job, as in the case of fish, I hope they will listen to representations and put their house in order even after the lapse of two years. We are faced with a situation in which fish prices have risen to unheard of levels. I telephoned one of the leading companies the other day to get their prices, and I found that during the last four weeks the middle cut of cod had made 3s. per lb. Salmon seldom makes that price at this time of the year. Fresh haddocks were 2s. 3d. per lb. —with the heads on, and with the bone and the skin. Smoked haddocks were 3s. per lb., middle cut of hake 3s. 6d. per lb., plaice 3s., lemon soles 3s. 3d., Dover soles 5s., whiting 2s. 3d. —whiting, normally sold at about 3d. a lb. —and skinned skate 2s. per

lb. Those prices are beyond the reach of ordinary people. When I asked a Question on the subject I was told that this was one of the most difficult problems the Ministry have had to face. Is there anything more incredible? In February, 1918, an order was brought in to put an end to high prices, and fish was brought within the reach of every member of the public. My Noble Friend the Minister of Food, speaking in another place, said as part of his defence for taking no action in regard to fish:
The moment we say that the price shall be the same everywhere the trader tends to sell his goods at the place where he will make the most profit. If he lauds his fish at Fleet-wood it is no advantage for him to pay for the transport to Birmingham if he can sell it in Manchester or elsewhere.
The trader does not land fish anywhere. The trawler-owner lands fish and puts it up for sale by auction at the port. The high price of fish is due to the working of the inexorable law of supply and demand. It is on account of the shortage of other kinds of food that fish prices are soaring—because people must eat if they are to live. Surely it is within the compass of the Ministry of Food to arrange for the fish to be sold on a free-on-rail basis, so that the trader pays the carriage whether he lives in Louth or Manchester, or at Land's End. What is the good of quibbling? In the whole of Great Britain the difference in carriage, even from the most distant ports, does not account for more than 1d. per lb., and I have given prices which show that fish is selling up to 3s. per lb. What is the incidence of 1d. on 3s.? Here is another of the Noble Lord's portentous sayings—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is, I think, quoting from the Official Report of the proceedings of another place, and that is not allowed according to our Rules.

Mr. Robertson: I ask the Committee to accept my apologies. I am a comparatively new Member and am still unfamiliar with all the Rules of Procedure.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. Am I right in assuming that an hon. Member may quote from memory?

The Deputy-Chairman: Quoting from memory is a different thing.

Mr. Robertson: The statement to which I was about to refer had the suggestion behind it that the fish trade should put its


house in order and that, if it failed to do so, the Government would come in and control it. That is what this House has been asking the Minister to do for months past. When on the 16th March, 1940, meat rationing was brought into force, a Maximum Prices Order for fish should have been introduced. Who is getting this money? It is not the fish trade which is getting the money. The trawler-owners, after years of adversity, have no pre-war standard of profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the profiteer, and the Ministry of Food have put him into that position by their failure to control. In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said: "We are eliminating profiteers." The Ministry of Food have made the Chancellor the profiteer. The trawlers are earning on the average 200 percent., but with the exception of a few pickings which they get every penny goes back to the State, because they have no pre-war standard of profit. The Government, while subsidising food to the extent of £2,000,000 a week in order to keep down the cost of living, are forcing up the price of fish by refusing to control it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting the money. I say, and I hope the Committee will support me, that we must compel the Ministry of Food to control the price of fish, so that people can afford to buy it, and I earnestly hope that will come to pass.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am sure that the Committee has listened with the greatest interest to the very forceful speech which we have just heard. I am certain that the Committee will give the hon. Member a full measure of support for all the points that he has put to us. I would join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister upon his comprehensive, cogent and very fair survey of the position. He showed a mastery of fact which some of us associate not only with him, but, by tradition, with his right hon. father. Lord Woolton, with the conception that he has of his position, has done his task fairly satisfactorily. One cannot put it any higher than that, and one has to qualify it by saying "with the conception that he has of his task." There seems to have been, and I am afraid there still is, in the minds of certain members of the Government the

idea that the Government should not interfere more than in peace-time, unless absolutely necessary, with ordinary routine. The Minister of Food should equitably distribute among all the people the fair and just ration for each person; that is his primary duty. His second duty is to try to use every measure to ensure that that ration is forthcoming.
It was interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary himself point out the weakness of the position of the Ministry of Food. He rightly drew a very careful distinction between imported food and food produced in this country. The position that was established, I think by the first Minister of Food, was that you had to buy at the cheapest prices the food which came into the country, and then to distribute it; but we have gone beyond that position. The Minister of Food knows where he can get his imported food and when he can buy it, and he fixes the price at which he gets it. The only thing which limits him is the very essential factor of shipping space. From time to time, shipping space is allotted to him, and he does his best to fill it. Sometimes there are unfortunate discrepancies between the shipping space allotted and his ability to get the goods to fill it. Un fortunately, the amount of food that is coming in is narrowing. The other leg on which the Minister relies, the food produced in this country, ought to be expanding as the other supply narrows, but over home-produced food he has no control whatsoever. How he carries out his work even as well as he does is almost a miracle and —

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Whereupon, the YEOMAN USHER of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having re turned—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:
1. National Loans Act, 1941.
2. Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee,

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

Question again proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Clement Davies: I was pointing out the difficulties that are confronting the Minister. They are even much greater than those which confronted Lord Rhondda and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in the last war. There are 6,000,000 more mouths to feed, and the food that arrives here is concentrated in three main ports —the Clyde, the Mersey and the Bristol Channel. There is not that equal distribution that was possible during the years 1914–18, when the Channel and even the Eastern ports were available, so his task is an immense one. The way I look at it is that he has to make up his mind, with the aid of the advice given to him, as to what food is necessary to feed the millions who are here—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and the civil population.
I was very glad to hear, in the excellent maiden speech to which we have listened, a reference to the fourth volume of the Memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I would commend the reading of that volume once again to Members of this House. One has read it in the past, and at that time it was like reading history, but to read it to-day is to read a living story through which we are again passing. In it the author deals very vividly with the food situation when he took office as Prime Minister at the end of 1916, and points out that it was on food that Russia, Austria and ultimately Germany broke, with the warning that we nearly broke at the self-same time. That is the task confronting the Minister, and he has to make up his mind what he requires. He is in a position to direct what shall come overseas, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, he imports only the essentials and nothing more. When they do come in they are the property of the Minister for distribution. He has paid for them, and they are his as they arrive in port, at the price which he dictates.
Not so the other half, which is. produced in this country, and that is what I have asked for, in season and out of season in this House, namely, that a position of power should be taken by the Minister of Food over all food production in this country, and that the Minister of Agriculture should be in the position of his factory manager. He should be able to dictate to the Minister of Agriculture, and, when the quantities imported are becoming smaller or are unreliable, he should be able to ask for an expansion of home production. It should then be the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to consult with his experts on how to obtain that expansion. If he is not able to do so because of vested interests, they should not be allowed to stand in the way. If he cannot expand the production because of a lack of machinery, labour, manure or seeds, all these things should be made available to him with the backing of the Minister of Food, so that, as far as it is possible to make sure of anything, production would be forthcoming. Then I would ask that when the food is produced, and as it is produced, it should belong to the Minister of Food in exactly the same way as does that which comes in by the other channels, and at a fair price to the farmers.
All the time I feel, with regard to this Government, that we are carrying on this war as to about 50 percent. under peace rules and only as to the remaining 50 percent. under war rules. Surely it ought to be 100 percent. war rules at least by now, when we have reached about the 20th month of the war. The organisation should be perfected in order to know as precisely as human ingenuity allows what food is forthcoming, and then it will be possible to make a proper distribution. It is no wonder that inequalities exist to-day, no wonder that there are plenty of eggs in one place and a shortage in another, bacon in one place and none in another. There is a wrong distribution even of rationed articles, and we all know of the maldistribution of unrationed articles.
That brings me to my second point. Instead of rationing being a burden, rationing is the only fair thing for all of us. It ought to be universally applied to all foods, and it ought to be so framed that it would be vocational. Why should I, who, except in a most occasional way, never do manual labour, get exactly the


same ration as the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting spoke, the quarrymen, striving all day in the heat and turmoil? There should be vocational rationing, for the sake of those doing heavy work, the miner, the quarryman, the factory worker, the farm labourer. This matter can be, and has been, worked out by the British Medical Association. I suggest that the Ministry call in the best experts, including, of course, Sir John Orr, to work out the proper rations for us all, according to our vocations; and that they should try to ensure that those rations are supplied. I ask for equity for every one of us, so that no man should be better treated than another, according to their just needs and their vocations, and that there should be a guarantee that that amount should be forthcoming. Then one will not go without while another gets plenty.
For that reason, I support the hon. Lady and others who have protested against non-rationing in restaurants. This has a very bad psychological effect. Speaking for myself—and I daresay other Members are similarly placed—I have not seen my ration card since it was issued to me. I have handed it in at my home, and I hope that the people at home, and the little evacuees there, get the benefit of my rations. But I have not gone short of a single thing; on no single day have I been without a meal.

Mr. George Griffiths: Shame!

Mr. Davies: That is what I am pointing out; it should stop. In the last war we had to carry these ration cards about with us, and we could not have more than our rations. That should be the position to-day. The rackets going on with regard to prices and supplies ought to be, and could be, stopped. If you had universal rationing, you would not get the position that you have to-day, that those working all day, who get free only late in the evening, find when they go to fetch their rationed, or unrationed, goods that the shop is empty. The harder people work and the longer hours they work, especially the women, the less chance they have of getting their rations, or of getting unrationed goods either. The less they do, the more time they have at home, the earlier they can be at the shop. The only way to abolish

queues and dissatisfaction and the lowering of morale is to treat all on a fair basis; to guarantee each of us that he will get no more than any other, except for vocational reasons; and to see that the food is bought by the Ministry of Food at a fair price, and distributed by the Ministry of Food at a fair price.

Mr. Mort: There is a particular point which I should like to stress, and it has been referred to by a number of hon. Members. It is the case of those men who perform very heavy manual labour. In my constituency there are three categories of men concerned: the tinplate workers, the steel workers, and the dockers. I am not suggesting that they are the only ones— I know that they are not—but, because they are in my constituency, I want to refer to them. I would make special reference to the steel smelters. I worked for 25 years in a steel works, including the period of the last war. I want to bring to the notice of the Committee and of the Minister some of the conditions that exist for steel workers. I realise that hon. Members who have not been engaged in the steel industry cannot appreciate the arduous tasks of these men and the difficult circumstances under which they labour at present.
In regard to cheese, the Minister has established a precedent. I put down a Question on that subject to-day, but I did not get much change. In allowing this extra portion of cheese for the agricultural worker and for the miner—and I have no quarrel with that—the Minister has admitted a very great principle, that certain grades of workers, because of the circumstances of their calling, are entitled to extra consideration above what is given to others. We in the House of Commons are very fond of precedents. He is a very brave man who will do anything here that nobody has done before. The working man has a great regard for precedent, too. If I could take the Minister on the stage of a smelting shop and introduce him to a first-hand steel smelter, he might be asked by the smelter, '' Having made a concession in favour of the agricultural worker and the miner, do you not think that I, working in these circumstances, am entitled to extra consideration, too?" The steel smelter is entitled to extra meat or bacon. It is imperative that he should get it. A man


who has to perform eight hours' hard physical labour, in dust and smoke— which is now aggravated by the black-out regulations—in sweltering heat, must have an extra allowance of such food, in order to retain his ability to do work which is so essential to the nation. The steel smelter expends more effort in eight hours than we do in eight years. Nobody disputes that. A lighter diet might do many of us much good. I cannot help comparing my experience during this war with my experience during the last war. The steel smelter is always bathed in perspiration. When he sits down to eat his food he is not in a well-aired canteen; he has to take his food on the stage, among the dust and the smoke.
There is another aspect that I would like the Minister to observe. These men really want what is described in the trade as "nice little bits." Men who have to work in these conditions require an appetite tickler, but in this strange social' system under which we are living, it is left to the first-class hotels to stimulate the jaded appetites of people who do not want the food. The provision of canteens is no solution for the steelworkers' difficulty. The steel smelter, like the soldier, cannot leave his job; he has to be there. I would like especially to make an appeal to the Minister. He said that he had consulted the trade unions of the agricultural labourers and the miners. I want him also to extend that consultation to the trade unions operating for the steel and the tinplate workers. They are well organised, and I can assure him that a case will not be presented to him for any extra special treatment. I am not making out a case as though the steel smelter is the only man who has to perform hard physical labour for eight hours a day, but the physical energy of these men becomes exhausted and must be remade and rebuilt, and it can only be done by the provision of these things. It would be no sacrifice to me, if I was told that I could not get any more bacon. I could do without bacon, but an extra allowance of bacon for the steel smelter would be a great thing. I appeal to the Minister not to dismiss this appeal on an arithmetical basis. I hope that the Minister will not obtain the figures of the steel and the tin-plate trades from another Department and say that there are too many of them. I

am not pleading for every man in the steel and tinplate trades, but for those men who work on what is described as the plant. If the Minister will do that, I am sure he will obtain sufficient evidence to prove that what I have endeavoured to present, perhaps in a faulty manner, is well-founded.

Mr. Muff (Hull, East): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) has emphasised the matter of the extra ration of cheese, because one of the points I wish to make is to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that another Department of State allows one ounce of cheese, one ounce of jam and one ounce of syrup per day to all internees. As one who has visited these internment camps and has seen that most of these internees are not occupied in arduous tasks, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food should readjust the ration here, without injustice even to the internees. Again, as one who habitually visits prisons, I would direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to another branch of His Majesty's services, and point out that the food scales for prisoners are the same to-day as they were seven or eight years ago. We provide cheese in prison and also other luxuries. With the exception of Dartmoor prisoners, some of whom are quarrymen, most of the prisoners in other prisons are engaged in sedentary occupations, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that a proper readjustment is made in the distribution of food.
The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) mentioned a reserve of canned food. As one who has devoted some 20 years of his life to the distribution of canned food, I wish to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the great danger of profiteering in canned foods. So far his Ministry has done very little in regard to this matter. I do not wish to mention the name of a firm of canners in order possibly to give them a free advertisement, but their price this week for canned soup is 4s. 7½d. per dozen. The same kind of soup, with the same label, is quoted by another firm with a very high sounding name, within five minutes of this place, at 8s. 9d. Another firm quotes 94s. per dozen for gallon


tins of plums, in water. The quotation on the statement that the December standard should be accepted, and that there should be no advance on those prices, should be nearer 25s. than 94s. The Ministry of Food has cut off the supply of canned lobster. Therefore canned crayfish, or crawfish or misnamed spinny lobster, call it whatever you will, is 10d. to 1s. per tin. The price quoted by reputed firms in Liverpool was 50s. for four dozen tins, but a firm with the good old English name of Levi quotes 1s. 6d. or 72s. for four dozen tins. This is a temptation to the South African canners to put up their prices correspondingly, when the actual price should be nearer 50s. for four dozen tins. And so I could go on.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman allowed a licence for the importation of five-ounce tins of pilchards from California. The price of these was 3s. per dozen. He sends his detective force snooping around among the little shopkeepers to see whom they can catch profiteering. These little shopkeepers and some of the co-operative stores bought these five-ounce tins containing food, mind you, at 5s. per dozen, and now down comes the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his heavy foot and says that they must be sold at 4½d. per tin. Why does he allow notorious persons to buy salvage and other stocks indirectly? My friend with the good old English name can afford to send his agents to various places where he knows they have had deliveries in order to buy up stocks. I have given the instance of the South African crawfish, which is, indeed, the only canned fish anybody can buy. I could also mention other quotations, but I have already brought these actual quotations to the attention of the Minister, with, I must say, very little success. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) apparently objects to the use of the word "profit," and therefore to please him I will call it "the proper reward for services." I think that the hon. and gallant Member will have to reconsider the question of the reward for services in respect of the small shopkeeper. I say the "small shopkeeper" because he is voiceless. The multiple men are powerful; the co-operative societies, very properly, have their mouthpieces, and their case is put most ably

not only in this country but on the Floor of the House. I do, therefore, plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to devote more attention to the fountain head of distribution before actual distribution to the small shopkeeper takes place rather than sending his detectives snooping around to try and catch these people out. In every county and locality he has his committees, and if they hear of cases of profiteering, they should give them to the Ministry, chapter and verse.
I do not want to end on a too critical note, but I think the Ministry have made a mistake in allowing milk distributors to miss delivery on one day, as they are doing in certain parts of the country. It needs only a few days of warm weather for the Parliamentary Secretary to find himself, deservedly, in a row. I think with pride of what was done by his Ministry before the war broke out. I do not want to mention the name of any civil servant, but the gentleman who was seconded from the Board of Trade and who is now at the Ministry of Food did and has done a great job of work, and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would give him his head more and allow him to have more executive authority, because there is an uneasy suspicion in the trade and in distributive circles that there are too many long waits before we get any proper decision.
I had a charming letter to-day from the Parliamentary Secretary about bird seed. It almost made me want to chirp. I do not wish to read the letter, because I promised the Committee that I would sit down after speaking for only a short time. But these people are rendering a service to the community, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to do something as regards the bird seed they require. Then there is the question of tobacco. One distinguished Member of this House who spent some time in prison told me that one of the things he missed most was tobacco. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs."] No, it was not. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) does not, I think, smoke, whereas the gentleman I was referring to does smoke. As soon as we can find the shipping space for American tobacco, I hope the Ministry concerned will import it for its psychological value for those who, unfortunately, have not sufficient self-control


in order to forgo the habit of smoking. The Committee listened to a forceful speech from an hon. Member from across the border who represents a South country constituency, and I hope the points he made, and all the others which have been referred to, will be brought home to the Parliamentary Secretary and especially his Noble Friend. We only wish that we could have him on the Floor of the House, so that we could address to him a few words suitable to the occasion. However, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will convey our kind regards to him and our hopes that he will "put a jerk into it."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will be highly satisfied with the Debate that has taken place. It has been one of the best on the work of one of the Ministries that we have had for some time. The criticisms that have been levelled against the hon. and gallant Gentleman have not been very sharp; let us hope that he will be able to deal with them. The House of Commons occasionally—and this is one of the occasions—comes up against what probably is one of the largest and most complicated problem in the life of our people, and that is, food distribution. In the Debate to-day comments have been made on various topics, such as rationing, evacuation, shortage of supplies, consumers, retailers and wholesalers, miners, steel smelters, quarrymen and engineers; but, strangely enough, nobody has yet mentioned the people who matter almost more than anybody else in this business. I refer to the men and women who work behind the counter. I should not be doing my duty if I did not say a word or two about the difficulties which they have to contend with in these days. It does not matter what Parliament or the Ministry of Food or the shopkeeper decides; the person who has to reduce all the regulations into actual practice is the counter-hand; he has to face the actual customer. I would like to say one or two words about that side of the food business.
I have always felt that this war may be settled in the end, in all the belligerent countries, at the shop counter. Once or twice recently I have stood at a shop counter to see the demeanour of the

women who come to buy the commodities they require. I would advise hon. Members sometimes to stand there to study the average woman customer when she orders what she needs and fails to get it. One thing however is certain. It has been mentioned in the Debate to-day, and I think it ought to be emphasised. Customers have no complaint in the shops provided all are treated alike, but once they gain the impression that one customer or a group of customers can get something that the others cannot, then the tiger comes to the surface. I have been rather struck by one point that has been mentioned to-day about restaurants and luxury meals. You can never prevent a person who has enough money in his pocket from getting something better than others who have not the means to pay for it. For instance, salmon is 7s. 6d. a lb. Nobody in this country can afford to buy salmon unless he is well-off. The same thing applies to other luxuries. One way to prevent this inequality is to introduce the extreme step of rationing incomes. Then we might reach the stage of equality. But as long as one man receives £10,000 a year, and another gets only £200, nothing the Minister's Department can do will prevent the first from buying the very best, and the other from going without.
It is, however, the man behind the counter who has to bring all these rules and regulations into actual practice. Napoleon once said that we were a nation of shopkeepers, but Hitler may some day tell us that we are a nation of shop assistants. It is true I think that every war which we wage is fought very largely by shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks. Fifty percent. of the shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks are already in the Forces. The Minister of Labour and National Service has already denuded the shops and offices of this country of male assistants, with the result that managers of branch shops are being harassed beyond bearing. In some cases they have no skilled men left except themselves. Everybody thinks, of course, that work behind a shop counter is unskilled, but that is not so. I want the Minister to press upon the Minister of Labour and National Service the fact that the task behind the shop counter is of as much national importance as work in a mine or on a farm. I know that people in general think those duties can be performed by


almost anyone. In a co-operative stores, with dividends, rationing, penny banks and share accounts, the work performed by the man or woman behind the counter is of considerable importance to the community.
Let me emphasise that point a little further. What makes the queue outside the shop? It is not entirely a shortage of supply. I have studied the queue problem a little, and I have found that a group of women inside or outside a shop will automatically form a queue themselves. The existence of the queue how ever is not entirely due to shortage or rationing. A branch manager in a shop I know had nine male assistants; they have all been called up, and he has 11 women to take their places. But, since he trained these young women assistants, the Ministry of National Service has compelled some of those to register and in the end they will go too. I want the Food Minister to tell the Ministry of National Service that if he wants to avoid irritation to customers we had better secure for the shops of this country skilled men and women who are capable of handing out the goods. I had a deputation, yesterday, from persons who are actually doing the job—grocers, milk roundsman and the rest. Parliament can talk as much as it likes about distribution, but to the milk roundsman, it means pushing seven days' milk into six days' bottles as it were. The Minister, sitting in his office, looks upon milk, sugar, butter and cheese just as inanimate things, but these men have to meet Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones, to talk to and argue with them; and all the regulations that are passed arc not of the slightest consequence unless they are workable on the doorstep.
I will read what one of these men tells me himself. That will be more important than anything that I can say. I asked one who deals with most of these problems in a grocery and provision shop to tell me what he thought of the food situation. He happens to be an Englishman, or he would not be quite so critical. Being a Welshman, of course, I must not be too critical of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Incidentally the modulation of his voice in some parts of his speech reminded one of his famous father. On the top notes the hon. Gentleman to-day was not unlike that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). If he

becomes as famous a politician as his father, he will indeed make wonderful strides. To return, however, to what was said to me by a man with practical experience. As far as butter, bacon and sugar are concerned, he says no difficulty arises. Margarine and cooking fats should be made a definite ration—three ounces of margarine and one ounce of cooking fat. Tea rationing should be every other week, and two weeks supplied, with definite registration, as in the case of sugar. The cheese arrangement is good, except that the time-table should be more strictly adhered to. If people neglect to register by the date laid down, they should forfeit their supplies. With regard to the grouping of jams, marmalades and syrups it is suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might go a little further and group other commodities on the same plan. That is a suggestion which has been put to me on several occasions.
My informant gives a case to illustrate the human aspect to which I return once again. In his department there were over 700 males employed between 14 and 65. Of that number, about 360 have been called up. Everyone of military age, if fit for duty, has gone. The Committee may take it from me that, unless those behind the counter get a better deal from the Minister of National Service, the Food Ministry will know about it in due course. There is hardly any reservation at all from military service for the distributive trades; they are regarded merely as clay. However important other workers may be who are reserved, they are not performing more important tasks than shop assistants who are handling foodstuffs under Regulations. The farming and agricultural interests in this House have obviously made their mark on the list of reserved occupations. They are powerful enough to get agricultural workers reserved at 21, not because that is any more important than the work assistants are doing in shops, but because of political power. There are only a few of us here connected with the distributive trades, and I think I speak on their behalf when I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he wants the rationing system properly conducted, and milk equally distributed, without annoying the people who stand in queues, he should


call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the points that I have made.
On the whole, the Ministry of Food have a difficult task to perform and I should say that its work is fairly well done. I did not like one thing that the Noble Lord said recently. He boasted that he had had a 9d. lunch somewhere, but I would like to know what he had to pay for his dinner that evening. It is all right to have a 9d. lunch, provided you can pay for a good dinner the same evening. I am glad to think that communal feeding is being taken up so ardently. The point has been put to me, however, that anyone can walk into a communal centre, and that those who are accustomed to pay 2s. 6d. for lunch at an hotel go to the centre and get it for 6d. That is what they call economising for the national effort. It would be a good thing if communal feeding were extended, and I trust that local authorities will take it up in real earnest. Incidentally, I have a feeling that some of the Continental peoples know more about this communal food business than we do; they seem to be able to use vegetables and meat to greater advantage than we do in this country. Finally, whilst the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be very satisfied with the Debate to-day, I trust he will take particular note of one thing I have said and see that food and provision shops are kept fully manned by efficient and skilled hands and that shops will not be denuded of male assistants any further by any other Department of State.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said, what I can assure him I feel, that I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the Debate to-day, and I think that will be generally accepted by the Committee. That does not mean to say that I or my Noble Friend or the Ministry are content to be satisfied with what has been done. We have had from many quarters of the Committee suggestions from Members with knowledge and experience, and while it will be impossible for me to deal with every one of them in the time at my disposal, they will receive the most careful consideration of my Department. It would be best, I think, if I dealt with three or four of the bigger points that have been put. Many hon. Gentlemen have spoken, including the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr.

Barnes), who has great knowledge of all these questions. As far as I can gather from the speeches, the general feeling— and I am certain it is a feeling that expresses the situation correctly—is that with regard to what we consider to be the staple foods there is not much cause for complaint. That in itself is a move in the right direction, because the staple foods are so chosen because, in the opinion of our advisers, they are the filings which are essential to the health and well-being of our people.
I would remind the House that we have had a speech to-day from the right hon. Member who did great service in the Ministry of Food in the last war. He fully appreciated our difficulties and would be the first to admit that they were not able to tackle the situation in the case of unrationed foodstuffs in the last war. The position is that while we at the Ministry are satisfied on the whole with the position concerning staple foods, we do appreciate that the question of unrationed foods is an extremely important one. It is not so much that they are in short supply compared with the pre-war situation as that they are in short supply compared with the increased demand for them owing to the limited amount of staple diet foods available. It is obvious that if, for instance, the allowances of meat and cheese are greatly reduced, people with means, and they include a very large number of people in this country at the present time, will look for an alternative, and that is why unrationed commodities appear to be in shorter supply than they really are.
The question arises, how are we to deal with the situation? Rationing and registering have been suggested. I ask the Committee to believe that we are not rejecting any suggestion out of hand, but I would put forward one or two objections which we have found in considering those suggestions. The Committee will agree that it is not an easy matter to register a commodity that will in no way go round the community. Registration has disadvantages as well as advantages. One disadvantage is that, possibly, registration will drive people, or rather they will be persuaded by their own ideas, to go to the larger shops, such as the chain stores, and that would not be to the advantage of what is known as "the little man." No doubt that could


be got over, but it is not an easy matter. Rationing means that every person in the country is entitled to a portion of the rationed article, and when things are in short supply it is an extremely difficult problem.
One of the methods which we are now trying out, and we are watching the experiment very carefully, is the rationing of groups. Where you cannot get a sufficient quantity of one particular commodity to give a ration to everybody you take a group of somewhat similar commodities—in this case we call them "sweet spreads"—and put them together, when we think we can manage a ration of two ounces per week all round. That system is being examined, and will continue to be examined, and it is possible that that group system could be extended. I will not mention any commodities, because for obvious reasons I do not think it is a good thing to do so, but it may be possible to extend that system to other commodities, and I can say that the position is under very active consideration. Reference was made by an hon. Member to the movement of population. He said we were trying to get out of our responsibilities by putting the whole onus on to the wholesaler. That is not the reason. It was really done to assist those people to find out where the population had moved to. I am aware that there are possible difficulties and weaknesses in that scheme, because it does leave it to them to decide, to a certain extent, and it may be that certain districts get more in spite of the movement of population away from those areas. We have only had this in operation since January, I think it was, when we got the first list of the altered population. We are examining it to see how that has affected the placing of goods in the various parts of the country.
Another question raised concerns milk. On this point I would extend my congratulations also to the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. E. Walkden) on his very able maiden speech. I am glad to be able to do so, because he and I have already met on this question of milk, and I know that he has great knowledge of it. Here again, we do not turn down the rationing of milk out of hand. It is vital, now that milk is coming into better supply, that we should get as much as possible of it to build up a reserve against the shorter supply of winter, and therefore to make as much

condensed milk and cheese as possible. The hon. Gentleman, and many other hon. Members, said that this would be done just as easily by rationing, but I think they will agree that rationing is not so easy in this connection. I know full well the difficulties of the roundsman, because they have been explained to me, but I do not think those difficulties would be any smaller under a rationing scheme. The roundsman would still have to deal with every lady of the house when he came to deliver the milk.
If you had an equal ration, it would by 2/5ths of a pint per day, but it is impossible for each house to have an equal ration for example, if there are children. You would need a different ration according to the type of person in each house, and according to whether there were children under or over a certain age, or invalids. The difficulties of the roundsman would not be very much less under a rationing scheme. This, however, is not a matter which can be very quickly decided. On the other hand, it is urgent that we should save as much as possible of the surplus milk at the present time, in order to safeguard our position when supplies are very much less.
I want to deal with the point regarding restaurants. The hon. Lady Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) —she is not here at the moment— seemed to think that we were eating too much. I do not think that that comment is justified. It is the duty of the Minister of Food to give as much food as possible to the people of this country, but, at the same time, to have an eye upon the supply position in relation to future requirements. I can assure the Committee that this is being done. She said that we ought to tighten our belts. We have certainly taken in a hole or two, and I am not saying that we cannot take in one or two more, but we have started, at any rate. As long as possible we shall give the people of this country what food we can, always having in view national safety. We always have that point in view.
On the question of the meals that you get in restaurants, I am anxious that a wrong impression shall not go out of this Committee. We are told about the 6s. or 7s. dinner; but you must not judge the amount of the food that is eaten by the size of the menu or by the amount that


you pay for the meal. Anybody who has been to a public dinner should know that to be true. I tell the Committee that when I have been to communal—or British, as they are now called—restaurants I have found that the food given to me was ample and often more than I could manage, because I had not done heavy work before I went there. From the point of view of food, I should think it would put in the shade many of the longer and more expensive menus that I have seen. But whether that is so or not, the fact remains that when you are talking of restaurants you must include catering establishments, the British Restaurants and all the canteens which supply workers—and I do not agree with the hon. Lady that these canteens are not essential; I think they are a vital part of our war effort and are doing a very great service to the country—and even if all those were swept away, as I have already said to-day, it would not be possible to increase the meat ration by more than one penny.
One hon. Gentleman did not seem to think much of our meat department, because we keep on changing the ration. I do not think that is a bad thing to do. Suppose that to-morrow morning we found we could increase the ration to 1s. 6d.? Should we not do it because we have already fixed it as Is.? Surely it is better to increase the ration when it is possible; I do not believe it would be a good thing to fix it definitely for, say, six months and not change it. It is far better that we should increase it if possible. I would remind the Committee that serious attacks upon this country did not develop until well into September of last year, and they had a very serious effect, as everybody knows, both in regard to the sinking of ships and also the attacks on our centres, which obviously include our storehouses, all of which has had a very great deal to do with the reductions which had to take place.
I now turn to another extremely important question which has been raised, namely, the price of fish. I have never made any attempt to hide my view that the price of fish is very much too high. There is, of course, an extremely complicated system of distribution, and the commodity itself is highly perishable, and I know from my own experience that cer-

tain of our ports, on occasion, have been entirely closed through enemy action, which increases the difficulty. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that something will have to be done about it, and something will be done. We were, however, anxious, in view of the complications, to make use of the existing system of distribution, which at any rate knows exactly where the stuff has to go, and I would remind the Committee that to control prices is only to deal with a very small part of the problem. On many occasions I have been told that when onions were controlled they disappeared. They did not disappear. They disappeared from certain places, because if a thing is in short supply, the tendency is for it to be sold nearest to the place where it is grown, and last year the onions that we produced were only about one-thirteenth of our total consumption. This year, by putting down 15,000 acres instead of 1,000 we hope to make a much bigger contribution to our own needs. The reason that they disappeared was that they went to the places nearest to where they were grown.
Fish at the present time is in very short supply. The hon. Gentleman referred to one particular fish being as expensive as salmon. Why is salmon expensive? Because, on the whole, it is a scarce commodity. That, of course, does not excuse the fact that present prices are out of all reason, and we had hoped to be able to utilise the existing method of distribution, in agreement with the trade, for a scheme in regard to cod, so that afterwards we could use the working of that scheme as a basis for extending and improving it where necessary. Unfortunately, just after the scheme was agreed to, certain things happened into the details of which I cannot go owing to considerations of the national interest, and it was not possible for the scheme to be pursued, so that we were not able to see how it worked. I can, however, say to the Committee that we are determined that if fish cannot be distributed at a reasonable price, the Ministry itself will have to take action. I can say without hesitation that action will be taken, and that has been made perfectly clear to the trade.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about representations being made to the trade, but the trade do not control the price, nor any of the factors causing the price of fish to


rise. I have already said to-day that the rise has been caused by the inexorable operation of the law of supply and demand. Because of the shortage of meat and other commodities, the public are clamouring for something to eat—including fish—and at the auctions the prices the buyers pay only reflect what the public are willing to give. It is no good asking the trade to do something; it is my hon. and gallant Friend's noble Friend who must come out into the open, as Lord Rhondda did in 1918, and control the prices. In regard to distribution, the problem which my hon. and gallant Friend finds so complex, does he not realise that transport is controlled by another Government Department, and that if his noble Friend wishes fish to go to any centre, he has only to send empty trucks which will go only to that centre? If fish is landed at Fleetwood, for instance, and he wants it to go to London, but not to Manchester, he can send it not to Manchester, but to London. It is a very simple problem.

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend is the only person I have discovered in this country who finds it simple.

Mr. Robertson: Perhaps I am the only one who knows anything about it.

Major Lloyd George: I know that fish prices in the last war were increased by 400 percent. My hon. Friend says that if you want trucks to go from Fleetwood to London, you have only to send them. Let him try to do so at the present time. Let him ask the Minister of Mines if he can do that after a blitz. What my noble Friend said was that he hoped that the scheme suggested by the trade would be worked. Through no fault of anyone inside this country, it could not be worked. It may be that the Ministry will have to be the purchasers of the fish at the port of landing. What we are determined to do, in this most difficult situation, is to see that no exploitation takes place. With the finest scheme in the world, it would not be possible to make up with fish what is short in other commodities. I do not know the figures, but I doubt whether 30 per cent. of what we had before the war is coming in today. That is, because our ships are doing other work, but we are determined to see that this matter is settled to the greatest advantage of this country.
Many other smaller points have been raised. I have taken a careful note of

them, and I will look into all of them. I am aware that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are inequalities. My Noble Friend has been twitted on many occasions with having said that it was not his job to put inequalities right. This is not a fair interpretation of what he said. He said that his task was to distribute the food. But we have removed practically all inequalities as far as staple commodities are concerned. We realise, however, that in regard to certain un-rationed commodities it is possible for people to obtain supplies in other places; and we are doing our best to get a fairer distribution throughout the country. No one wants to perpetuate inequality more than is necessary. But there are bound to be inequalities. There is for example, the inequality between people living in the country, who can catch a rabbit, and people living in the towns, who cannot. We are determined to remove all the inequalities we can. I, personally, am extremely grateful to the Members of the Committee for the far too kind things they have said about me to-day. I wish to thank them for the many valuable contributions that have been made in this Debate, and to assure them that every possible attention will be paid to what they have said.

Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. — [Major Dugdale.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — FEEDING-STUFFS (RATIONING).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Maryle-bone): I want to say a word about corn. I do not suppose that you could find a more important subject, considering that if we can always obtain a sufficiency of bread, we can hold out against starvation for a long period. Bread and vegetables are a healthy diet, and I understand that, as far as vegetables are concerned, we are self-contained in this country. Surely, it should be our policy that corn should be used only for human consumption unless used for purposes that assist us in the war. I want to draw attention to the fact that a racehorse gets a ration of 15 lbs. of


corn per day. Can it truthfully be said that racehorses are essential to our war effort?

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): What about the owners of them?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am coming to them. It is claimed, I know, that racehorse bloodstock will be a valuable national asset after this war, but what a lot of use that will be to us if we lose the war through lack of bread. It is also claimed that racing produces a diversion in the gloom of war and keeps away demoralising despondency. But how about the great number of people who do not race? I think that they would feel more cheerful and possibly less despondent if most of the corn which is at present now being used for racehorses was stored for the serious emergency that may be expected. Is it not rather hypocritical to say that we must keep the people cheerful by racing and at the same time prohibit Sunday entertainments, a form of entertainment which does not consume corn?
I know that this is a great racing country. I personally have enjoyed it myself. Some of the most influential people in the country own racehorses, and I know that the views that I am expressing are not conducive to popularity in some quarters, but as I am not popular in some quarters, I think that possibly I am the very person to put forward these views. Therefore, I say that the question is a serious one. Our present situation is now so serious and the accumulation of corn may be so vital that horseracing should be discontinued and racehorses put out to grass.
In spite of an answer which I received to-day at Question time, I know of a great number of cases where poor people have had to give up their poultry through lack of food. A day's ration of corn for one racehorse would enable 20 families to feed six hens per family, and do it properly. I mean a sufficiency of corn that would enable some of the hens to lay. The food value of the egg is particularly high. In another answer that I received to-day I was told—to quote the exact words:
Rations for poultry are governed by the quantity of feeding-stuff available and could only be increased by reducing the quantities available for other classes of livestock." 
Other classes of livestock include racehorses, and to my mind it will be extraordinary, to put it mildly, if there is any

more pandering to those who happen to own racehorses and those who have the time and the money to go racing.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has put a case which seems to me to be worthy of a reply, and I hope one will be forthcoming from the Government Front Bench. He put his case very objectively, without trying to stir up sectional feeling about it. If I had been putting the case, I would have taken perhaps a somewhat different line, because in my constituency and elsewhere what I meet with in connection with this matter is the feeling that some kind of favouritism is shown in respect of providing for racehorses by maintaining the quota of corn that is allowed to owners. It is put to me that this is providing for the rich man's pets, sport and enjoyment, whereas no provision is made for the pets which the poor man enjoys keeping. We have, as the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, the spectacle of rations being cut and poultry dispensed with because there is not the necessary food.
Recently I myself raised the point about this cutting down and the complete denial of food for cage birds such as budgerigars and canaries. It seems a small thing, but these pets are greatly prized by their owners, and they think there is something wrong in the way in which this matter is being looked at by the Government, that race-horses can still be provided for while their pets, which consume far less, cannot be provided for and maintained. The fact is that many of these pets are having to be put out of existence. The question of dealing with racing pigeons is also one that comes under this particular consideration, and I wish to make clear to the House and the Government the resentment that is felt about the lack of provision for many racing pigeons while at the same time race-horses are apparently provided for to a sufficient extent to make it possible for the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Capt. Cunningham-Reid) to raise his complaint. Although there does not appear to be any sign of a reply today, I hope that some statement will come from the Government before long with regard to this particular matter.

Question, That this House do now adjourn, "put, and agreed to.